Dear david f,
>>I regard it as abominable and inexcusable to burn people at the stake for any reason at all or to punish people in any way for merely disagreeing with a doctrine.<<
Of course, I agree with this, as well as with most of the preceding, since we both live in the 21st century. And that is all I wanted to point out: the historical context. That brings us back to the impossibility of checking whether there could have been another “historical path” leading from the Judaic and Hellenic origins through medieval Christendom and through Enlightenment with its scientific insights and achievements, to where the West is now. One can believe that medieval Christendom could have been by-passed, but one cannot provide evidence for that since history cannot be rerun under altered conditions.

Stefan Zweig’s book was translated into East European languages (I read the Slovak version) by Communists seeing it as a critique of the Church (and also because Zweig apparently wrote it as protest against Nazism). It was immediately sold out because people read it on the background of what they were experiencing under their current regime.

Indeed, Zweig reproduced faithfully the historical facts, including the conflict of Servetus with Calvin, but I do not think therein lies its main value. It reads as a beautiful celebration of the freedom of conscience, irrespective of whether you read it as protest against Nazism or Communism, or just as a manifest of freedom.

“Always and everywhere there will crop up independents who sturdily resist any such restriction of human liberty, “conscientious objectors” of one sort and another; nor has any age been so barbaric or any tyranny so systematic, but that individuals have been found willing and able to evade the coercion which subjugates the majority. And to defend their right to set up their personal convictions, their own truth, against the alleged “one and only truth” of the monomaniacs of power” [“Castellio gegen Calvin oder Ein Gewissen gegen die Gewalt ("The Right to Heresy: Castellio against Calvin")]. The English translation seems to be out of print (http://www.amazon.com/Right-Heresy-Castellio-against-Calvin/dp/B0006EUMJE).

'That brings us back to the impossibility of checking whether there could have been another “historical path”...'
Now there's a fascinating game. I wonder how seriously the ancient Greeks took their Gods?
It has been remarked before, that Dawkins would have made a fine 'little' priest, particularly in the very distant past.
To start with, he is very intelligent; he is a keen observer (a scientist), he is very passionate about his beliefs (and expects to be heard) and he isn't built like Conan. How does such a man guide his community through the travails of nature, in a time when leaders chose themselves through the strength of their arms? By claiming an alliance with someone immeasurably stronger still of course.
In that sense, it could be argued that Dawkins has made Darwin his 'God'.
“You may not listen to me, but you should surely listen to my God, or really bad things will happen!” Pretty much describes the history of the Jews, doesn't it?
Today of course, scientists don't need to claim a Godly bodyguard. We have democracy. Instead of claiming divine inspiration, we just go with majority opinion.
It seems the ones most likely to reject majority opinion (on such things as evolution, or Global Warming) are the religionists.
I wonder, is it just a coincidence that the rise of Democracy seems to parallel the fall of religion?
Of course, American Presidents still claim divine guidance, but one can legitimately question their sincerity; particularly the likes of George W.; and I sincerely doubt the majority of Americans vote for a President because they believe he is divinely inspired.

Grim,
Your last comment, “..I sincerely doubt the majority of Americans vote for a President because they believe he is divinely inspired” is interesting. ‘Time’ magazine did an expose of the Obama 2008 election (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1856819,00.html) which generally endorses this. Noted, was the one minority voting bloc that remained largely unmoved by Obamamania: white Evangelicals – although a quarter of them did actually vote for Obama, “despite a warning from conservative columnist Janet Porter that they could be risking their eternal souls by doing so.”

McCain’s biggest political mistake was to solicit Sarah Palin into his campaign – his miscalculation was that she was so unappealing she was even culturally outside mainstream Evangelicalism. Strangely enough, her credentials appeared impeccable: her pro-life stance led her to oppose abortion in all circumstances, even in cases of rape and incest, except where the delivery was to result in the mother’s death. Her strong, open religious faith apparently made her the perfect person to reach out to conservative Evangelicals.

‘Time’ summed it up well, “McCain may find himself quoting a bowdlerized verse of Scripture in November: What does it profit a man to gain the Christian right and lose the White House?”

Dear George,

Historical context. "The Dark Ages" dated from 380 to about the 17th and 18th centuries. We can date the beginning of the Dark Ages easier than we can its end because a particular event marked its beginning. The beginning was on 27 February 380 when Theodosius declared "Catholic Christianity" the only legitimate imperial religion. "The Closing of the Western Mind" by Freeman tells how the spirit of enquiry that existed in the classical world was criminalised at that point. In 384 Theodosius prohibited haruspicy, the inspection of the entrails of sacrificed animals, on pain of death, and unlike earlier anti-pagan prohibitions, he made non-enforcement of the law, by Magistrates, into a crime itself. Priscillian was the first person in the history of Christianity to be executed for heresy in 385.

Constantine’s Sword by James Carroll, Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2001, tells how the adoption of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire changed Christianity to a religion of war and Jew hatred. Then followed a period of great violence as Christianity imposed its religion on most of Europe. With the exception of Ireland this was effected by bloodshed. eg. Charlemagne gave the pagan Gauls the choice between beheading and Christianity. Richard Fletcher wrote "The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386" describing that bloody process.

From Eighteenth Century Europe, page 233

"For the philosophes, Christianity had been an historical disaster, destroying a tradition of civilization in Greece and Rome that had sought to live by reason. In their view the Middle Ages were truly "the Dark Ages." It seemed to them a time when religious myth was the chief source of authority. Medieval learning was dominated by the church and was designed to lead people toward God, while medieval science and historiography were devoted to discovering God's purpose and interventions in the universe. The philosophes felt that it was essential to revitalize these areas of learning, to extrude myth from Western thought and direct it back to reality."

The Christian tragedy continues. As Faulkner wrote, "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Dear david f,
Thank you for reminding me again of Charles Freeman’s book. I am not a historian and I certainly do not have reasons not believe the facts you list. They are apparently known also to other historians who might offer different interpretations and evaluations of them.

Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the “historical path”, that the West had to pass to arrive at Enlightenment with its scientific insights and achievements until the present, had to go through a very long period of Christendom, since we do not have an alternative. An alternative that could serve as a counterexample showing that that long - and from our vantage point painful, in many aspects irrational and immoral - period was not necessary.

Evolution is not straightforward, neither in biology nor in history, it has its hiccups, downturns or dead ends, and, of course, Freeman and you are right to point them out.

I am sorry that your reading of history compels you to have such a low opinion of Christianity’s contribution to what humanity (the West) has achieved so-far, but I respect and appreciate it: Every optimistic thesis needs a pessimistic antitheis to arrive at a more realistic synthesis. (And perhaps also vice versa, when the initial “thesis“ is pessimistic.)

Grim,
Thanks for clarifying. I was not attempting any childish game. I was attempting to try and understand your words. Most of the time you were not putting ‘creation’ in inverted commas. This made understanding difficult.

You then move on to discussing the quality of Scripture translations, and highlight difference between the Christian and Muslim view of Scripture. Muslims believe the Scripture can only be truly appreciated in its original language. Christians will still hold a high view of translated Scripture. Read outside of its original languages, the Bible may lack its full richness and subtlety of nuance, but its central themes and messages, delivered in various literary genres, are clear.

Because of the technical capacities of current scholars and their access to ancient texts, modern translations of the Earth’s ‘Owner’s Manual’ from ancient Greek and Hebrew are probably as accurate as any have ever been.

On the subject of martyrs, I notice that it wasn’t only scientists who were victims. Bible translators such as Tyndale, the first principle English translator, were also burned at the stake. Yet within a few years, the state honoured Tyndale by putting large chunks of his Bible translation into the king’s Authorised Version.

I stand by what I said that devout Christians will not, by definition, defy Christian doctrine. The usual example thrown at me at these times is Galileo. Galileo argued from the Bible that his empirical astronomical observations and interpretations were consistent with Biblical faith. He denied Ptolemaic geocentrism, not Biblical faith.

Something similar could probably be said of the other names listed above. Unfortunate that it is that it often takes martyrs to light the way to the future. Would that we all had such courage of our convictions when the chips are down.

We can be grateful that we now live in an age where all are able to speak freely without fear of prejudice, where all views are judged on merit and no doctrine is held too sacred or precious (??)

Do you really think the majority should decide all matters, including those of science?