Myth:

The Roman Empire falls. Europe, in the grip of anti-scientific Christianity, lapses into the dark ages. Scientific and technological progress in Europe ceases. Compared to its Muslim neighbours or the Chinese Europe is a dark, barbaric continent.

Then Europeans recover the lost Greek learning from the Muslims. The Renaissance! Modern science! Progress!

Reality.

The so-called 'dark ages' were a time of immense scientific and technological progress in Europe. During this period we have the first appearance of blast furnaces. Better ploughs are developed. Europeans learn, literally, how to harness horsepower. Better spinning and weaving machines are introduced revolutionising the production of textiles. The first harbour cranes make their appearance. Iron horseshoes revolutionise transport.

Also uring the 'dark ages' Europeans build the INFRASTRUCTURE of the knowledge economy. A dense network of well-funded universities is established. Academics are well-paid and enjoy immense privileges. Modern theoretical physics gets its start at the University of Paris. By the time the ancient Greek texts are recovered Europeans have far outstripped Greek science.

The cases of Bruno and Galileo notwithstanding, on the whole the Catholic Church supports science and technology. It is precisely during the 'dark ages' that Europe surged ahead in science.

The reality is well documented in Rodeny Stark's new book, 'For the Glory of God'. With a few exceptions the history in it is not controversial among professionals. If Stark had stopped there I would have regarded his book as interesting but unexceptional.

Stark, however, goes further. He asserts that it is because Christianity teaches the existence of a 'law abiding' God that science could ONLY flourish in Europe. It could not flower in Dar-ul-Islam because Allah is depicted as a capricious deity while it sputtered out in China precisely because their elite did not believe in any God.

Perhaps I am blinded by my disdain for religion in general, and the Catholic Church in particular, but I cannot see it that way.

Yet I cannot explain why Europe alone surged so far ahead in science and technology.

Any thoughts?

A common theory is climate.

Surviving in cold regions, where food is scarce and hard to cultivate, requires more innovation than subsisting in warm, fertile climates.

You'll note that Christianity brought the Middle East precisely zero advancements in technology. It's likely that Europeans, having evolved to become innovators, would have thrived regardless of the dominant religion.

A few more points I could not make within the 350 word limit of my original post.

Popular myth has it that Copernicus was an isolated Catholic prelate who came up with the idea of a heliocentric system out of the blue. This is false. Copernicus attended some of the best universities in Europe. He would have heard of the work of Jean Buridan and Oresme who speculated that, rather than the heavens orbiting the Earth, it was the Earth that spun on its axis. (See PLANETS, STARS & ORBS: The Medieval Cosmos 1200-1687 pp 642 – 643)

Copernicus took the next step. Like most scientists he built on the work of his predecessors.

It was not initially the Catholic Church but the Protestants who objected. Here is what Martin Luther had to say:

"There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, …However, as Holy Scripture* tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

*Luther was referring to Joshua 10:10-15

Amazingly the Catholic Church permitted dissection of human bodies – something neither Islam nor Judaism would have countenanced. This led to an explosion in medical knowledge. The myth that the great anatomist, Vesalius, was taking his life into his hands by performing dissections is false.

Finally, by the time Columbus set sale in 1492 no educated person, and certainly no senior prelate, believed the Earth was flat. The argument was about the size of the Earth, not its rotundity. Columbus' critics believed he could not carry sufficient supplies to reach India or Japan and that he and his crew would perish.

Columbus' critics were right. But Columbus lucked out and discovered America.

I could go on dispelling myths but again I am up against my 350 word limit.

There were no 'Dark Ages'.

On the whole the Catholic Church as not anti-science.

However I would not go so far as to say Catholicism gave birth to modern science. But maybe I am not seeing things clearly.

Steven,

My understanding - admittedly from more popularised accounts - is that the Dark Ages were associated with Emperor Charlamagne and his support of the clandestine monasteries around Europe. Maybe it was they who were actually in the dark while others were off doing some enlightened stuff? It's the first I've heard of this, but nothing would surprise me.

The other popular story is that the Muslims in Spain were responsible for innovations like the development of mathematics, the invention of latitude and longitude, the microscope and others. Where does this fit into the scientific landscape of the time?

Hi RobP

Round about the year 1000 AD various people started experimenting with curved glass as a reading aid. There is no known single inventor.

The manufacture of the first wearable spectacles is usually credited to Salvino d'Armate. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvino_D%27Armate

The first known attempt at a microscope appears to have been a father and son team, Sacharias and Hans Janssen.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacharias_Jansen

A competing claimant for inventor of the microscope is Hans Lippershey. He is usually credited with the invention of the telescope. See:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/342926/Hans-Lippershey

Eratosthenes is generally credited with being the first person to propose the use of latitude and longitude back in the 3rd century BC. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

No one person developed mathematics. Al-Khwarizmi is sometimes credited with the invention of algebra. However his magnum opus is mainly an extension of the work of Diophantus. See:

http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Biographies/Al-Khwarizmi.html

Notably Al-Khwarizmi was among the first algebraists to use the Hindu numbering system with the zero. That's the decimal system we use to this day.

Charlmagne was especially enlightened when it came to scientific innovation. He established schools for the teaching of mathematics and grammar.

Sancho,

Maybe it was the weather. However scientific innovation also flourished in parts of Europe that have a mild climate such as Italy and most of France. On the other hand the harsh climates of Central Asia and parts of North America do not seem to have engendered any scientific innovation.

The European surge in science and technology only gathered momentum in the 8th Century AD by which time the Middle-East was firmly under Muslim control.

On the other hand there was a pre-Islamic and pre-Christian history of scientific enquiry in parts of the Middle-East. The Great Library in Alexandria was the greatest institute of learning of antiquity until it was destroyed by Christians. The Babylonians seem to have invented observational astronomy. The Hebrew calendar is actually the Babylonian calendar.

Pre-European science reached its zenith in Alexandria which has a mild climate.

Hmm. Tough one. A few ideas:

Innovation begets innovation perhaps? A spark causes a conflagration which dies out unless fanned by winds of competition?

Perhaps it was the wider variety of peoples and cultures all crammed into the one continent. Although the Chinese aren't the monolithic culture they are often assumed to be, the various cultures around there tended to come from people who cultivated herds or crops. There wasn't quite the urban density which led to people adopting a more mercantile lifestyle.

Probably a combination of a multitude of factors.