Post by bjorn on Dec 12, 2009 15:36:54 GMT
I have just been reading James Walsh's "The Popes and Science; the History of the Papal Relations to Science During the Middle Ages and Down to Our Own Time" , an interesting experience to put it mildly.
Walsh totally demolishes A.D. White's conflict thesis, and views it as typical of the last century's myths, showing the danger of working with secondary sources and anti-catholic prejudices.
He also demonstrates by quoting contemporary sources, papal bulls etc. that The Church did not ban dissections, persecute scientists, disallow the study of chemistry, that it was common knowledge in the Middle Ages that the earth was a globe etc. etc.
Nothing new here.
Except from the fact that Walsh wrote in 1908.
So, this leaves even less excuse for those believing the myth the last hundred years. And Walsh doesn't even seem aware of Buridan and Orestes (I guess it was Duheim who rediscovered them a few years later), not to mention Bradwardine. He doesn't need them to argue for his points.
Well, I am not quite sure if I should take this as a good or bad sign. If someone like Walsh could refute White easily a 100 years ago, and the myths just continues to spread, is it really possible to stop them?
Of course Walsh was a Good Catholic and even dedicated the book to the pope, so it may have been dismissed as nothing more than propaganda. Still, he quotes so many sources that it is difficult to see how it is possible to read the book and still believe the conflict thesis.
So I guess few others than the pope really read it
Walsh totally demolishes A.D. White's conflict thesis, and views it as typical of the last century's myths, showing the danger of working with secondary sources and anti-catholic prejudices.
He also demonstrates by quoting contemporary sources, papal bulls etc. that The Church did not ban dissections, persecute scientists, disallow the study of chemistry, that it was common knowledge in the Middle Ages that the earth was a globe etc. etc.
Nothing new here.
Except from the fact that Walsh wrote in 1908.
So, this leaves even less excuse for those believing the myth the last hundred years. And Walsh doesn't even seem aware of Buridan and Orestes (I guess it was Duheim who rediscovered them a few years later), not to mention Bradwardine. He doesn't need them to argue for his points.
Well, I am not quite sure if I should take this as a good or bad sign. If someone like Walsh could refute White easily a 100 years ago, and the myths just continues to spread, is it really possible to stop them?
Of course Walsh was a Good Catholic and even dedicated the book to the pope, so it may have been dismissed as nothing more than propaganda. Still, he quotes so many sources that it is difficult to see how it is possible to read the book and still believe the conflict thesis.
So I guess few others than the pope really read it
