waterboy,
I agree in essence with the details you provided, supporting my statement that

“This is not the same as saying (Enlightement) was a product of the (Catholic) Church. The Church indeed opposed “enlightened thinking” and science - seeing them as encroaching on its domain of competence and responsibilities - until it came to understand what Galileo expressed so succinctly.“

Yes, unfortunately that “until” in this sentence took centuries. And, yes I have a preconceived perspective when evaluating or interpreting history, and I think everybody has. Also, Mendeleev and Lomonosov were not mathematicians and I never mentioned them in connection with the Russian Church, only with the Christian cultural environment that influenced their thinking.

Pericles,
I agree “ethos” was not the right word to use, and also how one understands other terms - like “comparable”, “product“ - used in my “construction” will influence whether and how one is “taken by it“.

I think one can say that the West in the centuries preceding Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment was as much a Christian society as today e.g. Iran is an Islamic society. This is also why I argue elsewhere that one should not try to impose a kind of “Reformation” or “Enlightenement” (including “democracy”) on Islamic societies, but rather wait in the background, and only encourage processes WITHIN the Islamic milieu that will lead to something resembling our “enlightened thinking“ (I know, cultural globalisation, makes this difficult).

Also, to say that revolutions are products of the society where they occurred, does not contradict the fact they are usually caused by dissent, or dissatisfaction, or discontent. I am not a historian but I think it can be said the French revolution was a product of the French society, whereas many Russians will argue that the October Revolution was imposed on them by the - alien to the “Russian soul“ - Marxist theory. In this sense Enlightenment was not imposed on the West - with a dominant Christian (whatever you like to replace “ethos” with) - from the outside.

George

My background is,of course,in the protestant tradition and its no news to suggest that the protestant churches are today destabilised and somewhat disoriented.Look no further thanthe effect ofthe Jesus movement on the Anglican communion.They will not easily give up their superstitions and their sacred cows but if they dont then they will retreat into irrelevancy.If the Churches spoke out prophetically instead of judgementally then they would be closer to fulfilling the mission that Jesus set for them.Sadly they are too concerned with personal salvation, church growth and'rooting out heretics'to develop their prophetic voice.They are like the man who seeks to save himself and loses his life inthe process.

The ideal church might justify Sell's optimism and make some positive contribution to the human condition and'being fully human'but alas it is far from ideal and fast becoming an object of general scorn in western society.The examples of St Mary's in Brisbane and St Michael's in Melbourne provide ample evidence that free thinking is still very much frowned upon by the Church.The inquisition is alive and well.In the evangelical churches itis less formal and rather more vicious,as Peter Cameron will testify after his disastrous brush with Australia's continuing Presbyterians.

Sells articles and some responses to Dr Macnabs initiatives lead me to identify a new fundamentalism in our churches.We are familiar with the'Biblical'fundamentalists.We are now seeing 'tradition' fundamentalism inthe Church which is unable to critique the traditions and creeds and wont countenance modern'interpretations'and contemporary attempts to break the bonds of tradition.They will eventually do the Church as much harm tothe Church's credibility as popular evangelism and Biblical literalism have done.

Id like to think that the Church encouraged,stimulated or advanced the intellectual freedom that is the cornerstone of science.Sadly its not the case and thats the story history will tell.

And please pardon my misrepresentation of Mendeleev and Lomonsov who were great scientists(Lomonosov, 18th century, was probably also a pretty good mathematician but never mind).Im not sure that the Church'made'them great scientists but I havent been able to find any evidence that they'ran foul'of the Church either

Waterboy,
“The intellectual freedom that is the cornerstone of science.” This is exactly the theme of the documentary movie by Ben Stein that I was referring to above, ‘Expelled’.

AJ,
Can I guess that you’ve seen the movie? If so, I’d like to hear your take on it.

waterboy,
I agree with most of what you say, though I can understand statements like "the inquisition is alive and well" only as due to some emotional "background radiation".

As for tradition vs modernisation, that would be a long story. One can easily go to extremes both ways. Let me just repeat my old metaphor about slide-rules (that worked because of a property of logarithms): we "modernised" slide-rules into computers but did not throw away the "tradition" of logarithms. Unfortunately, many conservatives in the Church want to stick to the "slide-rules", and many progressives want to get rid of the "logarithm" as well.

There is a difference between Christendom as a positive precondition for the birth of modern science (that my first post here was about), and the role of the Church or Churches that are indeed open to all sorts of criticism: It is one thing to say that growing up in an English speaking country is advantageous for understanding Shakespeare, and another thing to defend this or that educational institution’s policies regarding the teaching of Shakespeare.

I never said that “the Church encouraged,stimulated or advanced the intellectual freedom”. She did not (perhaps with some small exceptions like recently in Poland during the Communist rule); after all, that is not her role. Where she went wrong, was when she OBSTRUCTED others - Christians or not - who “encouraged, stimulated or advanced the intellectual freedom that is the cornerstone of science”.

Also, it depends what you call “Free thinking”: I do not mind if you “think freely“ (and I shall try to understand you), but I would object if you presented as mine (or were in such a position that people saw you as speaking on my behalf) teachings, opinions, viewpoints, interpretations etc that were not my teachings, viewpoints, interpretations etc. The same with the Catholic Church, where, of course people who are seen as speaking on her behalf are priests and Catholic theologians.

Dan S. de Megegue to Jayb. Were you saying that NASA succeeded in putting a man on the moon because they had a lot of money? Don’t they deserve any credit for their brain work and dedication?

You realize, of course, that the entire Control Room that put Apollo 11 on the Moon was removed from Woomerra in South Australia and set up at NASA, don't you?

Australia has contributed to the Worlds collective inteligence far above it's population. It's just that our sussessive goverments have squashed every major developement we have ever made. EG; We were the worlds leaders in Transistor technology until a pollie held aloft a Valve in parliment & said that a Transistor would never replace the valve. We were the worlds leaders Computers until parliment shut the research facility down. The Black Box, stem cell research & so on for ever & ever Amen.

Religious sway over Governments still has a lot to answer for in stifling human advancement.

George,

In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Deism seems to have been the compromise between Science and the Church. Robert Boyle and Sir Isaac Newtown were sceptical regarding aspects of religion, yet neither gave-up on belief altogether. “Natural Philosophy” explained the World with God as the watchmaker in the background. In this way, the mechanics of God and Nature could meld. Thomas Paine argues that Science demonstrated the existence of God. There was a creation. A creation orchestrated by God.

Perhaps, it was easier to hold Science independent to God in England than in France. Alexander Pope advises:

“Know then thyself, presume no God to scan. The proper study of Mankind is Man”

In France in 1749, Comte Buffon had to submit a copy of his, “Histoire nauralle” to a theological committee, the published edited-down version could only be held as a “speculation”, somewhat reminiscent of Galileo’s only hypothetical constructs can be held. Buffon’s Creation did not agree with Bible, yet to a Deist, there would have been adequate free play to argue that God was still the creator. I wonder if this is where the Bible was starting to be defended on the grounds of it being allegory, wherein Science and Religion might agree?

Deism sat with Science between the Ages of Ignorance and the Age of Reason, yet holding a model without God was perilous. In the eighteen century, when Chevalier de La Barrer critised the Church, “his tongue was wrenched and he was beheaded despite Voltaire’s protests” (Silver).

It would seem that Science was suppressed by the Church, yet in the period leading into the Enlightenment, Church and Science were uneasily in step. Latter, Science took off, leaving the theories of Church behind.

waterboy,

I think I am correct in saying that Mendeleev was not pursecuted by the Church, but his papers were suppressed for several decades.