Was the Conflict Between Science and Christianity Truly Absent Before Modern Times?

[Sushan]

This topic is about the August 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, How is God Involved in Evolution? by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, Dan R. Provenzano

One of the first things we noticed is that before modern science and evolution were developed there weren’t any significant issues with Christianity and the science of the time.

(Page 9 – Kindle Version)

The authors of this book suggest that significant conflicts between Christianity and science only began with the advent of modern scientific methods and discoveries. But is this perspective accurate?

Consider the historical examples of Galileo Galilei, whose heliocentric theory conflicted with the geocentric views upheld by the Church, or Giordano Bruno, who faced execution for his scientific and philosophical beliefs. Were these not significant issues between religion and the science of their times?

Does this assertion by the authors overlook the longstanding and intricate dynamics between religious doctrine and scientific inquiry? How do earlier conflicts, such as those during the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, challenge the idea that science and religion were harmonious before modern times?

[LuckyR]

Religion's bailiwick is in the metaphysical realm. The book is describing a time when numerous currently physically (scientifically) understood phenomena, were explained metaphysically by religions. The fact that religions stepped into the vacuum of ignorance is easily explained by human psychology. Similarly at the dawn of scientific understanding, there was conflict along this border.

At the current time most people use science to understand the physical and religion for the metaphysical, though a very vocal minority will selectively use religion to guide them on certain "hot button" scientifically understood topics.

[Sculptor1]

NO.
There are many examples.
Consider Justinian shutting down the schools of learning in Athens 529AD, which effectively drew an end to all scholarhsip.
Consider the mob that slew Hypatia of Alexandria and burned down the greatest Library that ever existed.

Christianity decided to make a compact with Aristotle's science and athough there was a lttle interchange with Neoplatonic ideas, Christianity effectively ENDED all scienctific progress by its "divinely inspired" compact with Aristotles POV. THis ball and chain
Copurnicus, Kepler Brahe, Servetus, Galileo, all have to work under that yoke for fear of sanctions. leasted over a thousand years.
Protestantism did release the chains somewhat.

[Sushan]

Religion's bailiwick is in the metaphysical realm. The book is describing a time when numerous currently physically (scientifically) understood phenomena, were explained metaphysically by religions. The fact that religions stepped into the vacuum of ignorance is easily explained by human psychology. Similarly at the dawn of scientific understanding, there was conflict along this border.

At the current time most people use science to understand the physical and religion for the metaphysical, though a very vocal minority will selectively use religion to guide them on certain "hot button" scientifically understood topics.

I completely agree with what you've said about how religion and science have historically interacted. But it makes me wonder, is there really anything that can be categorized as metaphysical, or is it just stuff we haven't yet figured out with scientific methods? What do you think?

[Sushan]

NO.
There are many examples.
Consider Justinian shutting down the schools of learning in Athens 529AD, which effectively drew an end to all scholarhsip.
Consider the mob that slew Hypatia of Alexandria and burned down the greatest Library that ever existed.

Christianity decided to make a compact with Aristotle's science and athough there was a lttle interchange with Neoplatonic ideas, Christianity effectively ENDED all scienctific progress by its "divinely inspired" compact with Aristotles POV. THis ball and chain
Copurnicus, Kepler Brahe, Servetus, Galileo, all have to work under that yoke for fear of sanctions. leasted over a thousand years.
Protestantism did release the chains somewhat.

You make some really compelling points, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It’s interesting to consider whether these conflicts were truly based on God’s teachings (assuming God exists) or if they stemmed from the insecurity of religious leaders. It seems like a lot of the resistance to scientific ideas came from priests and religious authorities who felt threatened by new knowledge that challenged their established views. They might have feared losing their influence or being unable to answer tough questions posed by emerging science. What do you think?

[Sculptor1]

NO.
There are many examples.
Consider Justinian shutting down the schools of learning in Athens 529AD, which effectively drew an end to all scholarhsip.
Consider the mob that slew Hypatia of Alexandria and burned down the greatest Library that ever existed.

Christianity decided to make a compact with Aristotle's science and athough there was a lttle interchange with Neoplatonic ideas, Christianity effectively ENDED all scienctific progress by its "divinely inspired" compact with Aristotles POV. THis ball and chain
Copurnicus, Kepler Brahe, Servetus, Galileo, all have to work under that yoke for fear of sanctions. leasted over a thousand years.
Protestantism did release the chains somewhat.

You make some really compelling points, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It’s interesting to consider whether these conflicts were truly based on God’s teachings (assuming God exists) or if they stemmed from the insecurity of religious leaders. It seems like a lot of the resistance to scientific ideas came from priests and religious authorities who felt threatened by new knowledge that challenged their established views. They might have feared losing their influence or being unable to answer tough questions posed by emerging science. What do you think?

I think?
I think you are squirming. God's teachings are wrong.
With respect you are not talking about "God's teachings" but Christianity. You can Cherry pick all you like. Please do not change the goalposts when it suits you!! LOL
The claim was that the adoption of Aristotle was "divinely inspired" had there been a god then he stood by in silence for over a thousand years whislt progress stagnated.
When push came to shove the Scriptures were used to condemn progress. example ...When god helped Joshua "making the sun to stand still" was used to argue against all who presented the idea that the sun was imobile in the centre of the universe rather than the earth. Surely had god know the day was given by a rotating earth he would not have said the sun to stand still but the earth.
So either Copurnicus, Galileo, and Newton were wrong or god was. Yet I think you will not argue that the earth revolves about itself and around the sun.

[Sushan]

NO.
There are many examples.
Consider Justinian shutting down the schools of learning in Athens 529AD, which effectively drew an end to all scholarhsip.
Consider the mob that slew Hypatia of Alexandria and burned down the greatest Library that ever existed.

Christianity decided to make a compact with Aristotle's science and athough there was a lttle interchange with Neoplatonic ideas, Christianity effectively ENDED all scienctific progress by its "divinely inspired" compact with Aristotles POV. THis ball and chain
Copurnicus, Kepler Brahe, Servetus, Galileo, all have to work under that yoke for fear of sanctions. leasted over a thousand years.
Protestantism did release the chains somewhat.

You make some really compelling points, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It’s interesting to consider whether these conflicts were truly based on God’s teachings (assuming God exists) or if they stemmed from the insecurity of religious leaders. It seems like a lot of the resistance to scientific ideas came from priests and religious authorities who felt threatened by new knowledge that challenged their established views. They might have feared losing their influence or being unable to answer tough questions posed by emerging science. What do you think?

I think?
I think you are squirming. God's teachings are wrong.
With respect you are not talking about "God's teachings" but Christianity. You can Cherry pick all you like. Please do not change the goalposts when it suits you!! LOL
The claim was that the adoption of Aristotle was "divinely inspired" had there been a god then he stood by in silence for over a thousand years whislt progress stagnated.
When push came to shove the Scriptures were used to condemn progress. example ...When god helped Joshua "making the sun to stand still" was used to argue against all who presented the idea that the sun was imobile in the centre of the universe rather than the earth. Surely had god know the day was given by a rotating earth he would not have said the sun to stand still but the earth.
So either Copurnicus, Galileo, and Newton were wrong or god was. Yet I think you will not argue that the earth revolves about itself and around the sun.

I completely agree with you on the point that the so-called "God's teachings" have often been manipulated by the church for its own ends, rather than for the true betterment of humanity. For the record, I stand firmly on the side of scientific evidence and reason. Personally, I don't even believe in God. However, I've tried not to dive too deep into that in this discussion because I wanted to approach this from an impartial perspective. I think it's important to keep the conversation open and grounded in logic rather than belief.

That said, when you mentioned how scriptures were used to condemn progress, you're spot on. The church saw the heliocentric model and other scientific advances as direct threats to its teachings, and by extension, its authority. Instead of fostering understanding, they chose to clamp down on anything that contradicted their narrative. This isn't about divine will; it's about maintaining control.

So, while I don't believe in God, I recognize the importance of questioning and challenging any institution that claims to hold the ultimate truth—especially when it hinders progress and understanding.

[Solaaa]

NO.
There are many examples.
Consider Justinian shutting down the schools of learning in Athens 529AD, which effectively drew an end to all scholarship.
Consider the mob that slew Hypatia of Alexandria and burned down the greatest Library that ever existed.

Christianity decided to make a compact with Aristotle's science and although there was a little interchange with Neoplatonic ideas, Christianity effectively ENDED all scientific progress by its "divinely inspired" compact with Aristotles POV. This ball and chain
Copurnicus, Kepler Brahe, Servetus, Galileo, all have to work under that yoke for fear of sanctions. lasted over a thousand years.
Protestantism did release the chains somewhat.

You make some really compelling points, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It’s interesting to consider whether these conflicts were truly based on God’s teachings (assuming God exists) or if they stemmed from the insecurity of religious leaders. It seems like a lot of the resistance to scientific ideas came from priests and religious authorities who felt threatened by new knowledge that challenged their established views. They might have feared losing their influence or being unable to answer tough questions posed by emerging science. What do you think?

In truth, religion will function like any man made authoritative system. Our institutions are powered by the instructions and ideals of those who hold power and positions. To defy those powers is to be a heretic. Even Jesus who is the centerpiece of Christianity was at odds with the church in his day because of how they operated. He along with his disciples were greatly persecuted and it has been so until this day. These were fellow Jews who were murdered for deviating from the accepted norms, a non-religious individual who stands in opposition will certainly meet the same if not worse treatment from said institution. It's not always about God but about protecting their already established authority.

[Sushan]

NO.
There are many examples.
Consider Justinian shutting down the schools of learning in Athens 529AD, which effectively drew an end to all scholarship.
Consider the mob that slew Hypatia of Alexandria and burned down the greatest Library that ever existed.

Christianity decided to make a compact with Aristotle's science and although there was a little interchange with Neoplatonic ideas, Christianity effectively ENDED all scientific progress by its "divinely inspired" compact with Aristotles POV. This ball and chain
Copurnicus, Kepler Brahe, Servetus, Galileo, all have to work under that yoke for fear of sanctions. lasted over a thousand years.
Protestantism did release the chains somewhat.

You make some really compelling points, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.

It’s interesting to consider whether these conflicts were truly based on God’s teachings (assuming God exists) or if they stemmed from the insecurity of religious leaders. It seems like a lot of the resistance to scientific ideas came from priests and religious authorities who felt threatened by new knowledge that challenged their established views. They might have feared losing their influence or being unable to answer tough questions posed by emerging science. What do you think?

In truth, religion will function like any man made authoritative system. Our institutions are powered by the instructions and ideals of those who hold power and positions. To defy those powers is to be a heretic. Even Jesus who is the centerpiece of Christianity was at odds with the church in his day because of how they operated. He along with his disciples were greatly persecuted and it has been so until this day. These were fellow Jews who were murdered for deviating from the accepted norms, a non-religious individual who stands in opposition will certainly meet the same if not worse treatment from said institution. It's not always about God but about protecting their already established authority.

I agree. And it is not limited to history, but today also the religious authorities are doing the same thing. 

For example, in the Arabic countries, they are imposing unnecessary and unfair rules over women in the name of the religion, although those rules have nothing to do with spiritual growth. And even in Russia, the Orthodox Church is backing Putin's decision on fighting with Ukraine. This support strengthens his political power and the stability of his government. And this too has nothing to do with anyone's spiritual growth. There are many more examples, and there will be more in the future as well.