Talk:Christianity and science

al-Mas'udi
Can I add the following: "Muslim historian, geographer, traveler, and polymath al-Mas'udi (known as the "Herodotus of the Arabs") (896-956) wrote: −		 −	 "In the time of the Hellenes and during the early days of the empire of the Rum [the Byzantines] (...) the sciences were honored and enjoyed universal respect. From an already solid and grandiose foundation, they were raised to greater heights every day, until the Christian religion made its appearance among the Rum; this was a fatal blow to the edifice of learning; its traces disappeared and its pathways were effaced." </blockquote"

after: "However, it is a very long time since these attitudes have been held by historians of science.}} and the majority of scientists in elite universities in the U.S. do not hold a conflict view. "

this article whitewashes Christianity
One gets the impression from it that no science happened at all until the Scientific Revolution. In fact science in the ancient world was an active and respected discipline until Christianity came along and crushed it, at least in the West. (Quite literally -- the pagan schools were physically taken apart, stone by stone.) It took centuries for it to recover, and by then the science was of course being done by Christians, because Christianity was the only religion allowed. But Christian Europe from about 400 - 1100 was non-scientific and backward.

The article should be twice as long, with the first part covering the years 1 - 1100. It should also mention (as someone else here has noted) that science was in the hands of the Arabs after it had been driven out of Christendom. 68.196.7.190 (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)captcrisis

I don't think this article's opening chapter is very precise nor accurate
This article starts with a speculative, and quite possibly erroneous, presumption of religous superiority in its in contribution to advancements built upon a heavily Abrahamic and pagan centric views (although the centering viewpoint is forgivable due to the nautre of the article, making these presumptions still is inexcusably irresponsible)--offering no real examples for comparisons (it is possible that the beginning paragraph's descriptor pretains to all religions; in which case, it should be updated to reflect that fact less ambiguously). A broad claim like this is unfalsifyable and carries subliminally judgemental bias and therefor is disingenuous if not harmful to make. It also paints an incorrect relation between advancements in science and the church. Many great scientists were in conflict with the church; for an infamous example, Galileo (for his work on astronomy, mainly because he was a proponent of heliocentrism). From the aforementioned incident and the tranditionalistic nature of all religions, it is clear the church did not promote skepticism; instead it promotes faith and blind trust in God --completely opposing one of the foundations of the scientific method (an example used in the article which makes an argument that idividual core tenants of the scientific method are a consequence of the church without any sources or reasoning). It is important to distinguish those churches back then to now (the article claims of religious contribution to the sciences before the industrial revolution yet fails to provide an example of a contribution past 1760. Not to mention that just because a christian was a scientist does not mean christianity as a whole had their exact viewpoint; like in using the bible as justification of slavery, not everyone thinks the same way. For an example to be truly representative of christianity as a whole, it must be a positive consequence in the sciences which is a derivative of christian ideals). Not every single one of the church's actions necessarily hurt the sciences, and it should be iterated that this comment is not meant as a suggestion to turn the opening paragraph of this article into a one-sided ridicule of the church. Furthermore, it is important to supply information on both sides to offer people a less biased information on this subject. As a corollary, the opening to this article should be revised so that it more accurately reflects unbiased history without making speculative antecedents by providing sources or examples. 70.95.16.161 (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The Catholic Church
I strongly object to statements like "The Catholic Church played a pivotal role in the development of the university, science, free market economics, charitable institutions, and even secular legal codes."

First off, it brings in a lot that's unrelated to the subject at hand, secondly, it's wildly overstated and lastly it posits the opinion of a single author as factual, while ignoring people like Al Hazen, the Islamic golden age, many protestant scientists and on the opposite side movements like Ultramontanism, which sought to establish the Church's dominance over science. This is not the way to write a balanced article. Kleuske (talk) 05:49, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The very phraseology being used there is public relations speak. That could easily be a press release from the Vatican. Scholars don't say "pivotal role in" and then rattle off five things in a list, so yep, totally unencyclopedic and generalizing crud. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2023 (UTC)