Except that science was going strong well before the Reformation -- think of Nicholas Cusa, Nicholas Oresme, Thomas Bradwardine, John Dumbleton, Jean Buridan, Theodoric of Freiburg, Albert of Saxony, Robert Grosseteste, et al.

Then came about 200 years of marking time during the Renaissance, when art and architecture flourished but science languished.

It was not until the 17th century that Europe reachieved the population density it had had in the 14th century. Assuming a consistent value of p for the proportion of minds curious about nature, this marked the first time in 300 years that there was a "critical mass" of such minds in Europe. And the printing press contribution was less than that ideas could not be suppressed, but that ideas circulated faster and impacted more minds -- sort of like neutrons in a nuclear pile.

The notion that the skepticism of the humanists had something to do with the acceleration of science in the 17th century would be better served if it were not for two inconvenient facts:
a) the humanists tended to be the arts people, not the science people.
b) the scientists were themselves at this time religious people. Some indeed (Copernicus, Clavius, Scheiner, Lembo, Kirchner, et al.) were clerics; and others (Kepler, Newton) were what we would call religious extremists.

Even the muslim case is ambiguous. The House of Submission ran a close second to Christendom in achieving breakthrough in natural science. For a while, and while we might say they were more devoutly religious, they were consistently ahead. True, al Ghazali is often blamed for the paralysis that set in; but this may be as much due to his occasionalism as to his devotion. Hume also poo-poohed the idea of causality. The real problem was the lack of universities -- natural science was never forbidden, but was never taught publicly, either -- and the catastrophic effects on society and infrastructure of the Turkish and Mongol invasions.

I realize this comment thread is probably dead but I have thought more about this debate and would add another point. What I say here is largely in response to the article on the stillbirth in Arabia but the point still applies.

Could it be that science developed in the Western world in spite of religion? Niall Ferguson in his book "Civilization" gives a more historically satisfying explanation to this divergence between East and West starting with two revolutionary events, the Reformation and the
invention of the printing press. While the West was in the throes of a great upheaval of ideas and the easy spread of them, the Muslim world was turning inward, going so far as banning printing presses and restricting knowledge mainly because of the conflict between new ideas
and religion. The Reformation marks a break in freedom of thought and the press becomes a tool to spread all and any ideas to a far greater number of people than ever before. The press made it so that once an idea was out there, whether or not it conflicted with religion, it could
not be silenced. Scientific progress benefited from the press by the easy dissemination of new ideas regardless of what the authorities felt about them. It is not coincidence that science really didn't start to take off until after this invention. And it is not coincidence that it is this period that marks the beginnings of radical and free thought
that broke away from Christian thinking. This explains more satisfactorily why science did not develop during the first 1500 years of Christianity. If Christianity was so necessary to the development of Science then why do we find for the first time the strongest skepticism towards Christianity developing almost hand in hand with science starting with this period? It seems that a more satisfactory explanation for this divergence is found in the reality that in the West there was no more a uniform way of thinking and there
was no more a single power whether it be Pope, Emperor or Caliph that could stop the spread of new ideas, while in the East this spread was stopped largely because of the conflict with religion. No doubt there were many
Christians who contributed greatly to science, however it is precisely starting in this period that many a Christian scientist was found in the position of having to try and reconcile their beliefs with their science because new ideas were not to be gotten rid of so easily as in the Muslim world.

Hmm, citing the Old Testament to invite Stalin's support of 'ridding' his country of religious dogmas in addition to the death penalty of married homosexuals and hard labor for any homosexual is far fetched at best. The reason why I cite Stalin is because he thought religious dogmas were as problematic as you do in citing them harmful - why wouldn't the government want to rid its country of something harmful?... Conversely, in modern times, as the US grows less religious its influence will wane (and is starting to), perhaps a distant possibility in the past - Russia and China religiousness is on the rise.
Glad you don't support communism but in the Marxist theory, Socialism is the precursor to Communism. Without religions filling the void of taking care of the poverty stricken then the government steps in with social programs to take care of them and as they grow lar eventually sees no need for religion, eliminate it and become communistic anyway.
Your saying that your support of government does include protecting things that harm its constituents, but once power enters the picture it changes a mentality - if you were in charge?...
Many atheistic leaders and governments have authority problems with religions, like Mexico in the 1920s or even China in the past (and bits today, but as I said religiousness is growing there). If you're in support of the U.S. government as I am (aside from a monarchy where everyone loves the king which in no way is humanly possible - heaven), then surely you see the value of religions as the founding fathers did?
You cited their dogmas as harmful, so I'm unsure... Wouldn't you agree that anti-religious secularists are the least united group of people in the world?... The Church gave the world a working calendar, what would its date be if Jesus's influence disappears- could we agree on anything or would an individual have to take charge?... The Church operates much more like a democracy than people think (Acts ch. 15 through Vatican II), can admit to its past mistakes such as it did with Galileo and the priest abuse scandal, WWII even though priests died in concentration camps, is the largest charity in the world, is the largest educator in the world and helped form the "lets not kill homosexuals because they're homosexuals" and "women can vote" type human rights as we know them today, is harmful?
I say labelling Pride the foundation of all sin is harmful?... With each quote of the Old Testament is the unending error of citing the New to Christians, what do you think of Leviticus 18:23, the sentence right after the one you cite?... Or bestiality is natural, ok, and should be legal because the Old Testament?-- You've read "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons" written by then Cardinal Ratzinger who became Pope Benedict XVI?... Science dictates that it takes one man and one woman to make a child, not an orgy, not anything else except that combination - men in Rome did decide that yet they have a desire to have a family. A deep seated natural, and very good, desire to have a family. Further up in the psychology, they're attracted to the same sex and although that's the result of nature too, nature does not allow them to naturally posses having a child with their desired parter. Something is off, its not in order - nature decided that, not Dogma, my dogma tells me that which I believe: they're not good people that God loves as much as everyone else.
If you can quote that document in conext you might get somewhere with people like me, but if someone highlight sectences in the Old Testament and told me I can't eat shellfish, Ill be puzzled as I thank God for my shrimp and lobster... because apparently they don't know my religious dogma?

Hi Norman.

Galileo may have acted rashly. He may have contended that he had proved more than the evidence available at the time warranted (and was wrong, according to modern astronomy and physics, in some particulars, as you noted in an earlier comment). And, he may have been intemperate (and imprudent, as it turned out) in the sarcastic tone and demeanor in which he styled "Dialogue" and evidently in which he also interacted at times with the Church hierarchy between 1614 and 1633.

But Galileo was neither a theologian nor a member of the Catholic hierarchy, so he obviously had no power to dictate Catholic theology or doctrine. I don't understand why the Church couldn't simply have ignored Galileo's ruminations on the implications of his findings regarding heliocentrism for some of the Church's biblical interpretations and Catholic theology.

While Galileo may have exhibited undue pride, impertinence, obstinacy, sarcasm and ridiculing scorn, the fact remains that the Church has borne the brunt of the blame for the outcome of the affair, Galileo's conviction for heresy, his confinement to house arrest and the banning of "Dialogue" and it was the Church that held the power and bears the responsibility for the course it chose to take.

I have no real interest in playing "gotcha" here. All of us make mistakes and all human institutions of which I'm aware make mistakes. (Some more egregious and some more frequently than others, of course.) While it may be emotionally or psychologically easier for those of us who are not believing Catholics to see areas in which the Catholic Church has made mistakes, it is not surprising, human nature being what it is, that it is harder for devout believers -- not to mention the hierarchy! -- to acknowledge mistakes by the Church. The real problem here, it seems to me, is not the gotcha game but rather that the extreme recalcitrance, and sometimes apparently obstinate outright refusal by some Catholics and by some in the Catholic hierarchy, to acknowledge obvious mistakes hardly improves overall credibility on other matters.

But, I fear we are wondering too far afield on this thread, as the "Galileo affair" has been the subject of other SN OPs and voluminous commentary.

Hi Norman.

In response to your comments in the third paragraph of your reply, I think the best policy is to avoid painting entire groups of people with too broad a brush. It is far better to focus on individuals, and what they do and say in specific contexts.

So, sure, there are some "churchgoers and religious" who are more narrow-minded than I would hope for. I know some personally, and have read things written by some that would lead me to hold that opinion of them.

But, the same is true with respect to some non-believers I know and others whose writings I have read.

And, to complete the circle, I know many "churchgoers and religious" -- including family members, friends and professional colleagues -- and have read the writings of numerous others who strike me as intelligent (often-times, highly), well-educated, well-read, and broad- and fair-minded people.

And, no worries about trying to convert me! ;)

Cheers.

Hi Norman.

Continuing on, to explore this very rich vein . . .

While I understand the reverence, not to mention the talismanic significance, many Jews and Christians express for the Ten Commandments, I hardly look upon them as being a summary of natural law or as manifesting the highest orders of morality.

(As an aside, this somewhat begs the threshold question of which Ten Commandments? Those contained in Exodus 20:2-17? Deuteronomy 5:6-21? Exodus 34:11-28? Which denomination’s Ten Commandments: Jewish? Catholic/Lutheran? Anglican and most Christian Protestant? Orthodox? For purposes of this discussion, I'll assume it is acceptable to work from the version taken from Exodus, Chapter 20 and to use the Catholic numbering scheme.)

Commandments 1 - 3 relate only to the relationship between the Israelites of the Old Testament and their God, Yahweh. They strike me more as the kind of thing we'd expect to see from an inordinately jealous, perhaps somewhat paranoid but certainly imperious, human ruler accustomed to demanding obeisance. I would characterize them as rather silly, and not particularly attractive, attributes of human emotion. They hardly seem befitting of an intelligence of the order Christians posit for God. And, they hardly seem to rank among the ten most wise and profound principles of morality known to a being/intelligence that could have created our universe.

Commandment 4 is a good idea, at least for those fathers and mothers who have, by their actions and conduct toward their children, "earned" it. But, in such instances it would hardly have seemed necessary to carve such a rule "into stone," as you put it, as it would seem to follow naturally. And, as for the parents who abandon, neglect, abuse (whether physically, psychologically or emotionally), taunt, belittle or humiliate their children, it's hard to see why there is some overarching principle of profound moral importance to the maintenance of human civilizations that would demand that such mistreated and abused children nevertheless profess to honor their unworthy parents.

Commandments 5, 7 and 8 are, to be sure, good ideas, as it is hard to imagine how it would be possible to maintain ordered, civilized societies if people were free to go around randomly and capriciously killing or stealing from others, as I've previously discussed, or lying about them in courts designed to deliver justice. Note, however, that when God handed down the Ten Commandments to Moses on Mt. Sinai, these commandments applied only to relations between the Israelites and did not have universal application: the Old Testament is replete with examples of the Israelites slaughtering numerous other indigenous peoples of Palestine and stealing their goods and property, often directly at Yahweh’s bidding, if the Bible is taken to be inerrant. Again, I am confident that anthropologists would tell us that virtually all societies throughout history, including those predating the Israelites of the Pentateuch period, have had proscriptions against killing and stealing (at least killing or stealing from other members of the tribe/community/society of which they were members). That is no earth-shattering, profound moral truth that only some omnipotent, omniscient being/entity/intelligence could reveal to mankind.

As to Commandment 6 -- the prohibition against adultery -- that again seems a rule that those ruling over human societies had noticed was a good idea to help maintain civilized order, once humans started living in societies larger than the family-based clans of our hunter-gatherer ancestors, because of the human emotion of jealousy. But even taken on its own terms, this Commandment is hardly high-minded and reflective of some incredibly far-ranging, probing, unimaginably insightful morality: to the extent this commandment prohibited a man from having sexual intercourse with a married woman not his wife, that was only because it was thought to be immoral not for reasons we modern humans understand, but because, to the Israelites at the time this was written, women were deemed to be the mere property of men and any man who had sexual intercourse with another man’s wife was, in effect, taking that man’s property without consent or payment. So much for objective morality far beyond the human imagination!

Finally, Commandments 9 and 10 relate only to private thoughts. They appear largely to acknowledge the reality of the human emotion of envy. And, note the usefulness they have for the elites in societies in which a few elites control or own wildly disproportionate amounts of materials goods -- or in polygamous societies of ancestral times, in which the most powerful males tended to amass harems of females, be they wives, consorts or concubines -- and desire to preserve their privileges and tamp down the natural instincts of most humans for fairness and more equitable participation in the society's productivity and wealth. Why, anyway, would some omniscient and all-powerful creator intelligence be consumed by private thoughts, rather than actions?

Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong puts it thusly:

“This mythology of a divine source of ethics enforced by the all-seeing God, however, has been revealed by the ancient codes themselves to be utter nonsense. A careful study of these codes reveals nothing less than the tribal prejudices, stereotypes, and limited knowledge of the people who created them. . . . The Ten Commandments, although still saluted by many religious people, have lost most of their ancient power. Many of those who pay them lip service cannot tell you what commandments are included in the Ten or even which of the Ten they absolutely do not obey. . . . The first clue in the Bible to the human rather than divine origin of these rules is seen in the fact that they were regularly violated when dealing with people outside the Jewish world.”

Again, Norman, thank you for this dialogue.

And, with the hope that our human societies can continue to develop more progressive, useful and meaningful moral codes than many of the outmoded and -- to my and many others' view -- highly immoral codes of morality attributed to God in the Christian Bible, particularly in the Old Testament. I hope for the development of a morality that actually addresses the widespread inequities in this life. A morality that ceases codling, protecting and enabling the politically powerful and the plutocrats to continue their affliction of the already afflicted. A morality that will help create and maintain more just societies in this life for the benefit of all humans, not just the rich and powerful, by:

(1) stressing the commonality that unites all humans;

(2) advocating for more effective and responsive government, one that more effectively restrains and regulates rapacious multinational corporations, destructive, unfettered markets and crony capitalism in order to prevent the rise of abusive oligarchies and plutocratic elites;

(3) preaching inclusiveness and universality and abandoning all forms of “tribalism” -- be they ethnic, religious, nationalistic, class-based or kin-based -- that promote “us versus them” ways of thinking, exclusion and divisiveness;

(4) seeking greater egalitarianism and more equitable distribution of income and wealth; and

(5) urging more tempered uses of our planet’s resources and more modest and humble human societies.

Cheers.

Hi Norman.

I do want to thank you for your comment, and for engaging with me in this area. I've (obviously) found your comment to be a rich vein to spark dialogue!

Neither you nor I may "need a list of reasons to know why rape is wrong." But, you may have misunderstood one of my earlier replies. The list of reasons I provided is, in fact, why I personally believe that rape is wrong. The fact that many others may also point to one or more of those as reasons to say that "rape is wrong" does not vitiate their also serving to ground my personal opinion on the subject.

I happen to agree with you that something inside us informs our moral views. I -- and many others, of course -- would call that something conscience. While I'd defer to anthropologists, psychologists or other scientists possessing relevant expertise and knowledge regarding human cultures and the human "mind," I'd guess that virtually all humans, perhaps with the exception of those characterized as being psychopathic or sociopathic personalities, have consciences and that they engage with their consciences continually in deciding how to act and behave in many circumstances. (Although, I also suspect that many of our decisions are governed by more purely immediate, emotional responses effectively hard-wired by the course of evolution into our subconscious.)

The profoundly interesting aspect of all this, to my way of thinking, are all the factors and considerations that go into why we have consciences in the first instance, how they are formed, and how they develop over the course of our lives. If you're not familiar with them, I'd heartily recommend Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature" (2002) and Joshua Greene's "Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason and the Gap Between Us and Them" (2013) [which I'm currently reading].

I understand, of course, that the Catholic Church has a different view on the source of conscience and how best to inform it! ;)

Hi Norman.

Continuing down the body of your reply . . . .

You report that Stalin had a policy to "kill homosexuals." It will hardly come as a surprise to you that I would denounce such a policy.

But, I don't see how the fact that Stalin may have had ignoble policies -- many, in fact -- helps to advance your basic theme. After all, history seems to teach us that -- notwithstanding what Plato or Hobbes (among others) might have conjectured about the so-called enlightened despot as representing the ideal form of government, or the idealized and sanitized manner in which the reign of selected secular monarchs, such as the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius, might have been passed down through the deep mists of history -- investing absolute power in a single individual (whatever the title one wishes to deploy) doesn't tend to work out well for the greatest good of the greatest number of members of that society or bode well for the prospects for most of the society's members to enjoy life and liberty unburdened by the arbitrary and capricious whims of the ruler. (You might reflect on the message this could portend for institutional religions vesting ultimate authority in a single individual, even more so in the case of a religion with a dogma that certain promulgations made by that individual are infallible under certain circumstances and conditions.)

There is little reason to think that dogmas pronounced by secular authorities are immune from all the problems inherent in dogmas pronounced by religious authorities. I don't endorse either.

We can rely on the same reasoning I've elaborated in my earlier comments in concluding that Stalin was wrong with his policy or "dogma" -- your term -- of "kill homosexuals." (Ironically for Christians, Stalin apparently could have cited Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 as warrant for his policy. Perhaps Stalin became familiar with passages in the Old Testament condemning homosexuality during the several years he spent as a seminary student at the Tiflis [Georgian Orthodox] Theological Seminary?)

I wonder if this same reasoning might also help explain why increasing numbers in Europe and North America appear to be rejecting Catholic dogmas regarding contraception, same sex marriage (and the Catholic teaching that homosexuality itself is intrinsically and objectively disordered) and abortion. It is possible for people to have sound moral reasons for rejecting the Catholic Church's dogmas in these areas, even if the Catholic Church is loath to concede that fact.

I understand why religious elites like to invoke God as the claimed "third party [source] of morality" to ensure compliance or secure submission on the part of their religious believers. Naturally, though, such claims are non-starters in dialogue with atheists who haven't been persuaded that there is good reason to believe a God in the form of that venerated by that institutional religion even exists in the first instance, much less that such a God in fact has revealed such moral rules to selected humans over the course of history and mandated their acceptance by human societies.