It is obvious that the Church held back scientific progress by centuries. Discoveries like the orbit of the Earth around the Sun were made under the threat of death as they exposed the false notions in religious texts.
Does anyone have more examples of instances where scientific progress has been censored by religious ideology?

In current times...christian fundies are trying to override the teaching of evolution in school with the teaching of creationism. (Don't believe the namby-pamby "teach both" PR sound bites, the fundies want evolution shelved).

Darwinian evolution is just a very lame theory, far from the truth.

The truth being.............................?

Far from Darwinism, you can bet on that.

Which is.............................?

Nope.

Darwinian evolution is just a very lame theory, far from the truth.

IAC...please stick on topic. This thread is about how religious ideology has impeded the progress of science.

Whilst I appreciate that your contribution is an exemplar of what is being criticised - there are plenty of other threads (started by yourself) in which to express your 'spin'.

"The pursuit of knowledge, unless sancitified by a holy mission, is a pagan act and therefore vile", St Bernard of Clairvaux.. (the most important christian of his time)...

Nothing has changed since then.. You'll find the only reason man is as "behind" as he currently is is due to religion..

Who burned the library at Alexandria? I was always under the impression that it got torched because it was heathen, and therefore evil.

Interesting that scientific knowledge has also emerged from within religious institutions - e.g. Gregor Mendel, the Jesuits. This suggests that there is variation in degree of censorship within the general ideology.

Who burned the library at Alexandria? I was always under the impression that it got torched because it was heathen, and therefore evil.
Which burning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Library_of_Alexandria#Destruction_of_the_Library)?

"Ancient and modern sources identify four possible occasions for the destruction of the Library:

1. Caesar's conquest 48 BCE;
2. the attack of Aurelian in the 3rd century;
3. the decree of Theophilus in 391;
4. the Muslim conquest in 642 or thereafter."

Caesar and Aurelius were before the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, I think (Aurelius was deified - very unchristian - according to Wiki). Theophilus looks a likely candidate though:

"In 391, Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all pagan temples, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request"

Interesting that scientific knowledge has also emerged from within religious institutions - e.g. Gregor Mendel, the Jesuits. This suggests that there is variation in degree of censorship within the general ideology.
Yes - just because somebody accepts the label of a religion doesn't mean they think the same as all other followers of that religion...

Sir Isaac Newton was a strong Christian who wrote about Biblical prophecy.

He also had read that the Great Pyramid dimensions are Earth commensurate, and sent a team to Egypt to investigate.

Re: Sources of destruction of Library at Alexandria:
Caesar 48 BCE
Auralian 4th century
Theophilus 391
Muslim conquest 642

The library at Persimmon suffered a similar fate...in fact libraries are often early casualties of war due to what they symbolise to the culture.

Sir Isaac Newton was a strong Christian...

And Newton is the perfect example of the censorship of science by the Church...thank you IAC!
Do you have any more examples?

He functioned quite well as a Christian, got the word out, what's the problem?

My point is that Newtons ability to function as a scientist was controlled by the Church.

I would never point someone toward a Roman Catholic church to learn about Christianity.

I would never point someone toward a Roman Catholic church to learn about Christianity.

This isn't about learning about Christianity IAC - its about the censorship of science by religious ideology...

The Roman Catholic church censored science, obviously not their only trangression through the centuries.

The Roman Catholic church censored science, obviously not their only trangression through the centuries.

Can you provide any more examples of religious ideologies censoring science?

How 'bout Islam shunning Western science?

Islamic scholarship has actually contributed a great deal to 'Western' science - in the some areas providing the basis for disciplines.

Then why are Islamic nations so technologically bereft?

Then why are Islamic nations so technologically bereft?

What is the basis of this assertion and how does it relate to the topic of the thread?

Look at most of their existences, you're asking about detriments to science, and the Wahabis want to turn the clock back to Muhammed's time, hardly scientific progress.

Have you ever been to an Islamic country to 'look at most of their existences'?

Also, can you please explain, for the benefit of readers of the thread, the specifics of Wahhabist censorship of science?

Most Muslims are not luddites like Osama Bin Laden.

Spidergoat covered it.

The dark ages of Europe were precipitated by the Church's widespread destruction of ancient knowledge. By the time of Newton, Europe had already rediscovered Islamic texts and copies of their copies of Greek works, which were responsible for the Renaissance.

And Protestantism kicked in near that time.

And Islam provided little scientific innovation thereafter, it was the West, with its Christianity.

IAC - I thinks its a little unfair that you are proceeding with posts whilst ignoring questions relevant to your point...otherwise it appears you are making things up.

What "appears to be made up?"

You haven't explained specifically how Wahhabism is censoring science.

Just look at what they do (or don't do).

And Islam provided little scientific innovation thereafter, it was the West, with its Christianity.
This doesn't make any logical sense....first you say that Christians censoring science isn't because of Christianity just because Christians do it...then you say Christians making scientific discoveries in the past must be because of Christianity itself, not because Christians did it.......

Islam really never tried to censor science at all....and the West took all their information from them.....

IAC I am asking for you to explain this...

Literalism in religion breeds intolerance for new ideas, particularly scientific ones. You can argue about which religion is worst...

Umberto Eco, writing in The Guardian on 4/9/04 gave a clear account: "Modern science does not hold that what is new is always right. On the contrary, it is based on the principle of ' fallibilism ' (enunciated by the American philosopher Charles Peirce, elaborated upon by Popper and many other theorists, and put into practice by scientists themselves) according to which science progresses by continually correcting itself, falsifying its hypotheses by trial and error, admitting its own mistakes - and by considering that an experiment that doesn ' t work our is not a failure but is worth as much as a successful one because it proves that a certain line of research was mistaken and it is necessary either to change direction or start over from scratch... This way of thinking is opposed to all forms of fundamentalism, to all literal interpretations of holy writ - which are also open to continuous reinterpretation - and to all dogmatic certainty in one ' s own ideas. That is good ‘philosophy’ in the everyday and Socratic sense of the term, which ought to be taught in schools."

There are topics where “balance” or equal treatment is not called for. You can value both story and science if everyone acknowledges the differences and values them for different reasons – myths, legends and stories can be very beautiful and pleasing and may even tell us much about ourselves and our emotions – while science explains how the world works.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1771

In general, it's a fact that any cultural institution that even frowns upon free investigation (let alone tortures and kills, like the xian one) will have a retarding effect on scientific progress. Today, it's science nerdism. How many potential young scientists don't even consider a cereer in science just because of peer pressur to conform to the ignorant status quo?

Kind of a shame, really.

VitalOne, I meant to say that Protestantism began to be a force near that time, and the Roman Catholic church then no longer had the monopoly which it had maintained for a thousand years.

What innovations have come from the Middle East during the last thousand years?

As long as Darwinism is treated as writ, the fix will still be in.

The fundamentalists are still repressing scientific advancement. The evidence is post #43

Darwinism is a tragically flawed hypothesis, at best.

What innovations have come from the Middle East during the last thousand years?

Parabolic Mirror 1020 Arabia from polished silver and iron by Ibn al-Haytham

Sugar Extraction 1025 Arabia from sugar cane by the Seljuk Persians

Mechanical Calendar 1050 Arabia

Seven Colour Printing 1100 Arabia

Smoke Grenades 1128 Arabia

Crank-shaft 1206 Arabia by al-Jazari - converts rotary to linear motion

Cannons, Guns 1304 Arabia
Europe

Artificial Insemination 1320 Arabia for animal breeding, especially horses

Sharaf al-Din al-Tusi (born 1201) invented the linear astrolabe

Refinement and dissemination of algebra, distillation, astronomical techniques...

Darwinism is a tragically flawed hypothesis, at best.

Please stick with the thread IAC... this is the second time I've asked politely...

Darwinism is a tragically flawed hypothesis, at best.
Fine, but modern evolutionary theory is not properly called Darwinism, which although incomplete was indeed revolutionary.

IAC you already have a thread titled: 'Darwinism Benefits Scientific Method?' in another forum.
Why not discuss your obsession there instead of hijacking this thread?

Darwinian evolution is just a very lame theory, far from the truth.
evolution is a FACT how it happens is a theory
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

OK whether fact or theory....is it an example of a science that has been held back by religious ideology - yes by Creationism.

Can anyone think of other examples of scientific progress being held back by religious ideology?

It is obvious that the Church held back scientific progress by centuries. Discoveries like the orbit of the Earth around the Sun were made under the threat of death as they exposed the false notions in religious texts.
Does anyone have more examples of instances where scientific progress has been censored by religious ideology?
you could try www.atheists.org for more answers

Is there a specific link to examples please? The thread is about examples of where scientific progress has been held back by religious ideology.

Here's another example. Intellectual heavyweight Kirk Cameron from "Growing Pains" creates Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design Board game (http://www.faithworksonline.com/search/isbn/1878859374).

So censorship is an ongoing thing...

Sir Isaac Newton was a strong Christian who wrote about Biblical prophecy.

Isaac Newton was mainly into alchemy and other superstitions. A "strong Christian" is probably not a very accurate description.

Darwinism is a tragically flawed hypothesis, at best.

Without support, your opinion is worthless.

Sir Isaac Newton was a strong Christian who wrote about Biblical prophecy.

He also had read that the Great Pyramid dimensions are Earth commensurate, and sent a team to Egypt to investigate.He also said the trinity was blasphemous and believing such will send the soul to hell-fire for eternity!

2060 is when he said Armagendon will being.
WhoHooo almost here!

Darwinism is a tragically flawed hypothesis, at best.

How's it a tragically flawed hypothesis?

How do you get a human to morph from an amoeba?

Here's another example. Intellectual heavyweight Kirk Cameron from "Growing Pains" creates Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design Board game (http://www.faithworksonline.com/search/isbn/1878859374).

Dam I used to like him a lot :(

It should be named "Darwinian Evolution Vs. Intelligent Design Board game."

How's it selling?

How do you get a human to morph from an amoeba?

You assume that this "morph" happens immediately like in XMen, that's why you think it's tragically flawed. You also assume that this "morph" is like sublimation, with no in-between entities.

Not only does Darwin's theory address the extremely slow evolution of simple to complex life forms, it also handles behavioral aspects especially - but not restricted to - those that can be shown to be related with physical developments (like ears instead of earholes).

Read an article even.

I've always wondered why we have ears instead of earholes. Was too much dust getting kicked into the earholes of our ancestors, so the flaps grew out? When did the earflaps grow out, "Cretaceous, Permian, Cambrian?"

I've always wondered why we have ears instead of earholes. Was too much dust getting kicked into the earholes of our ancestors, so the flaps grew out? When did the earflaps grow out, "Cretaceous, Permian, Cambrian?"

God just wanted to pull Adam by his ears.

Think of the expression "cup your ears".

Or, for the practically minded, cut off your pinnae ("ear flaps") and measure how much louder everything has to be for you to hear it.

I'll just ask Holyfield.

IceAgeCivilizations:

Please stick to the topic of the thread, or go somewhere else.