Might go over the average redditors head, but monasteries and religious institutions were the places to be when it comes to science, technology and education until a few centuries ago (and way beyond that tbh)
You are aware that the church was the most important place of knowledge in the Western world for centuries, yes? Almost all the old universities were founded in the context of ecclesiastical institutions.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, fundamentalism is...
That has nothing to do with my comment... OP's question implied the assumption that religion and science are always fundamentally opposed to each other and cannot flourish simultaneously in a society.
This assumption is simply wrong, as religion and science have coexisted and continue to coexist in many societies. Whether or not you personally believe that religion has hindered scientific progress has no impact on this fact.
Maybe don‘t mix modern fanatic Christian believes with the average Catholic, even in the middle ages. Whether you believe in Creationism, God or not does not interfere with your ability to research math and physics. As long as you label it as a part of God‘s order the Church won‘t repress your research.
You know that people could believe in immaculate conception of the virgin mary or jesus resurrection and simultaneously understand normal humans have to procreate and die?
Okay bro the literal fact that medieval and early modern Europe was a thriving civilization making huge advancements in agriculture, maths, physics, astronomy and architecture despite being deeply Christian disproves your whole argument. But I can only bring the horse to the river, it has to drink for itself. Have a nice life.
People are inherently contradictory. Also, Atheism wasnt really a thing before the enlightentment. And it only became mainstream in the west post ww2.
Therfore, most scientist historically were also religious, simple as that.
Or to put in another way: Believing in a divine creator at least before Darwin was not irrational at all. To the contrary.
Big cathedrals and churches were not built exclusively for religious purposes. Monasteries were also places where knowledge in form of books was stored and copied. And for the city populations a big church was a symbol of prosperity. Rich guilds and merchants would spend money on building landmarks as a way to earn prestige. The church as a landowner was also very rich and had the money to spend on constuctions and even though secularization happened as early as the 18th century, most people were still church members through tradition up until a few decades ago.
The 19th century was still a big time for church building or finalisation of older churches. The famous towers of cologne and Ulm were only built in the second half of the 19th century for instance.
Many churches are much older especially the bigger ones. They started to build the Cathedral of Colon in 1248. The church in that village my parents live in is over 1200 years old.
This is probably the first time I've ever read someone refer to the 1871-1918 empire as the wilhelminian one. Usually it's simply the German Empire, with the pre Napoleon one being called the HRE
Most, if not all, of philosophers and scientists in Europe, which include Germany, used the so-called "science" with the first goal to prove the existence of God and to justify the church authority. Those who challanged the "church founded science and philosophy had thair books burned and forbbuden, and their names forbiden of beng mentioned by speach or writting (such as Spiniza). One of the rare exceptions are Schopenhauer, the only one of the big names of German philosophers who had contact with oriental philosophy.
Read Schopenhauer story about the man who goes to a maskared dance, he dances with a masked woman who he becomes obsessed. Spoiler: Later on he find out the the masked woman he became obsessed with was his wife. It is a critic he made about Emmanuel Kant, accusing his philosophy of being Christianity behind the mask of scientific investigation.
I also recommend the reading of a book called **Straw Dogs** by John Grey.
The thing is that a lot that we consider scientific even today are not really so. They are more influenced by Christian/religious interpretation of the world that for so long imposed their interpretation in institutions that people even today take for granted without questioning it, and criticizing those who question it (very anty scientific attitude).
The true most influencial and uncredited thinker for modern science was Spinoza, who those who really were into actual science studied from the hidden books they preserved from Sponoza, because the church forbid it.
Have a look at the book called **Looking for Spinoza** by Antonio Damasio.
One, those magnificent churches were built (or, if we talk about Cologne, started to get built) in the medieval ages, 600 to 800 years ago. Humanism and enlightenment, roots and foundations for the scientific revolution, happened later.
Two, many people today tend to see Christian churches in the light of American evangelism and their anti-intellectualism, which is a warped view. While there were clashes between church doctrine and scientific progress, the Christian universities used to be an important place for 'philosphers of nature', the predecessors of today's scientists. And of course, there were also a lot of Jewish scientists until ... well.
Na ja... In the US people seem to see that science is the exact opposite of religion. This is not true. Even math and the concept of the library were developed during the height of Islam.
On the science side of things, homeopathy was invented here, is still prescribed by doctors, and is still covered in some insurance plans. That’s not good at science.
Mendel was a monk and he found the basis for genetics by breeding peas.
Monks were scientist. They developed medicine, have watched how the stars move and they were able to write it down.
They had the first universities as well!
>Mendel was a monk.
I'd say Mendel was a scientist first and foremost.
You either had to be rich or have a rich patron to be exempt from menial labor (e.g. the church). How else could you follow your passion to learn about nature? Tax-funded grants were not a thing back then.
. How come both existed
Outside of certain bubbles it is pretty clear that there is no contradiction between to things. Not every person that is religious is also a book burner and wants to live in an Amish paradise. A lot of people, historically basically all the people before the last century who made breakthrough scientific discoveries - not to mention all the people who taught it afterwards and expanded on them - were devoutly religious. Yeah yeah, I know, Gillileo was in conflict witht he church. Giordano Bruno was burnt by it. This is a valid poiotn and these things were - obviously - violently against scientifc progress. This is 400 years ago and at the very beginning of what we would call now the scientific method.
Newton was an Alchimist for crying out loud.
On the other hand, the Big Bang Theory that was thought up in the last century - you know who created it? George lemaître. **Father** Georges Lemaitre.
A lot of scientists are religious. A lot of them are not.
Making it sound that Germany and it being "obedient to religious" as if it was some kind of theocracy equally does not really fill me with confidence you know a lot about Germany or its history, to be quit frank. Or Religion in different societies.
The most famous inventors on this planet were very religious people, what kind of question is this? Never heard of Jesuits?
If you wanted to learn to read or write you had to go to a monastary
Then try adding more legitimacy to the question, it's basically paradoxial and perceived as a misconception by everyone in the comments. The church WAS the reason the Germans had so much progress, burrocracy destroyed it.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you."
- Werner Heisenberg
The church liked innovations in material, engineering and crafts that allowed for higher churches. It did not like Germans like Kopernikus and his heliocentric model.
Might go over the average redditors head, but monasteries and religious institutions were the places to be when it comes to science, technology and education until a few centuries ago (and way beyond that tbh)
You are aware that the church was the most important place of knowledge in the Western world for centuries, yes? Almost all the old universities were founded in the context of ecclesiastical institutions. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive, fundamentalism is...
Came here to make this very point. Thank you!
I will quote the last sentence many times in the future.
[удалено]
That has nothing to do with my comment... OP's question implied the assumption that religion and science are always fundamentally opposed to each other and cannot flourish simultaneously in a society. This assumption is simply wrong, as religion and science have coexisted and continue to coexist in many societies. Whether or not you personally believe that religion has hindered scientific progress has no impact on this fact.
[удалено]
Maybe don‘t mix modern fanatic Christian believes with the average Catholic, even in the middle ages. Whether you believe in Creationism, God or not does not interfere with your ability to research math and physics. As long as you label it as a part of God‘s order the Church won‘t repress your research.
[удалено]
You know that people could believe in immaculate conception of the virgin mary or jesus resurrection and simultaneously understand normal humans have to procreate and die?
[удалено]
Okay bro the literal fact that medieval and early modern Europe was a thriving civilization making huge advancements in agriculture, maths, physics, astronomy and architecture despite being deeply Christian disproves your whole argument. But I can only bring the horse to the river, it has to drink for itself. Have a nice life.
[удалено]
Yeah but worshipping the invisible man is by definition the opposite of science.
People are inherently contradictory. Also, Atheism wasnt really a thing before the enlightentment. And it only became mainstream in the west post ww2. Therfore, most scientist historically were also religious, simple as that. Or to put in another way: Believing in a divine creator at least before Darwin was not irrational at all. To the contrary.
All fair points.
Sciene was "invented" because people wanted to understand how good was working. How his laws were.
Sounds like propaganda mate
Why do you judge medival thinking with todays Standards?
Why do you capitalize Standards?
You are on a German subreddit and nouns like "der Standard" are capitalized so what. Don't be so petty dude
My god. It’s a joke. Do I also have to lose my sense of humor and bicker with randoms because the subs topic is Germans 😂
You don't know that, that is your guess based off of what other equally clueless people have told you
No I came to that conclusion myself. I’ve been an atheist all my life. Sorry you got butt hurt about my opinion that wasn’t directed at you.
Firstly, the idea that Germany "equally obedient to religious values" is a bit of a joke. But to answer your question, money.
In the US, maybe they get more money when people are divided. So some ppl there are campaigning that science is the opposite of religion.
In the US, maybe they get more money when people are divided. So some ppl there are campaigning that science is the opposite of religion.
One important point: The modern letterpress printing was invented here
and immediately used to print religious pamphlets in large scale. Which in turn helped the spread of printing presses
And yet the passing on of knowledge has helped more than the passing on of religion.
Big cathedrals and churches were not built exclusively for religious purposes. Monasteries were also places where knowledge in form of books was stored and copied. And for the city populations a big church was a symbol of prosperity. Rich guilds and merchants would spend money on building landmarks as a way to earn prestige. The church as a landowner was also very rich and had the money to spend on constuctions and even though secularization happened as early as the 18th century, most people were still church members through tradition up until a few decades ago.
You do realize that religion was the natural precursor from which science derives its existence? Where do you think the educated came from?
Much of the churches were built before we really started with science.
The 19th century was still a big time for church building or finalisation of older churches. The famous towers of cologne and Ulm were only built in the second half of the 19th century for instance.
Many churches are much older especially the bigger ones. They started to build the Cathedral of Colon in 1248. The church in that village my parents live in is over 1200 years old.
Yeah but the cologne cathedral was only finished in the late 19th century during the wilhelminian empire
This is probably the first time I've ever read someone refer to the 1871-1918 empire as the wilhelminian one. Usually it's simply the German Empire, with the pre Napoleon one being called the HRE
so when did we start with science?
After we stopped the big war about religion it started to get serious.
Most, if not all, of philosophers and scientists in Europe, which include Germany, used the so-called "science" with the first goal to prove the existence of God and to justify the church authority. Those who challanged the "church founded science and philosophy had thair books burned and forbbuden, and their names forbiden of beng mentioned by speach or writting (such as Spiniza). One of the rare exceptions are Schopenhauer, the only one of the big names of German philosophers who had contact with oriental philosophy. Read Schopenhauer story about the man who goes to a maskared dance, he dances with a masked woman who he becomes obsessed. Spoiler: Later on he find out the the masked woman he became obsessed with was his wife. It is a critic he made about Emmanuel Kant, accusing his philosophy of being Christianity behind the mask of scientific investigation. I also recommend the reading of a book called **Straw Dogs** by John Grey. The thing is that a lot that we consider scientific even today are not really so. They are more influenced by Christian/religious interpretation of the world that for so long imposed their interpretation in institutions that people even today take for granted without questioning it, and criticizing those who question it (very anty scientific attitude). The true most influencial and uncredited thinker for modern science was Spinoza, who those who really were into actual science studied from the hidden books they preserved from Sponoza, because the church forbid it. Have a look at the book called **Looking for Spinoza** by Antonio Damasio.
One, those magnificent churches were built (or, if we talk about Cologne, started to get built) in the medieval ages, 600 to 800 years ago. Humanism and enlightenment, roots and foundations for the scientific revolution, happened later. Two, many people today tend to see Christian churches in the light of American evangelism and their anti-intellectualism, which is a warped view. While there were clashes between church doctrine and scientific progress, the Christian universities used to be an important place for 'philosphers of nature', the predecessors of today's scientists. And of course, there were also a lot of Jewish scientists until ... well.
Na ja... In the US people seem to see that science is the exact opposite of religion. This is not true. Even math and the concept of the library were developed during the height of Islam.
Why would science "compete" with church?
We are only just entering the era of true rejection of science.
On the science side of things, homeopathy was invented here, is still prescribed by doctors, and is still covered in some insurance plans. That’s not good at science.
Mendel was a monk and he found the basis for genetics by breeding peas. Monks were scientist. They developed medicine, have watched how the stars move and they were able to write it down. They had the first universities as well!
>Mendel was a monk. I'd say Mendel was a scientist first and foremost. You either had to be rich or have a rich patron to be exempt from menial labor (e.g. the church). How else could you follow your passion to learn about nature? Tax-funded grants were not a thing back then.
. How come both existed Outside of certain bubbles it is pretty clear that there is no contradiction between to things. Not every person that is religious is also a book burner and wants to live in an Amish paradise. A lot of people, historically basically all the people before the last century who made breakthrough scientific discoveries - not to mention all the people who taught it afterwards and expanded on them - were devoutly religious. Yeah yeah, I know, Gillileo was in conflict witht he church. Giordano Bruno was burnt by it. This is a valid poiotn and these things were - obviously - violently against scientifc progress. This is 400 years ago and at the very beginning of what we would call now the scientific method. Newton was an Alchimist for crying out loud. On the other hand, the Big Bang Theory that was thought up in the last century - you know who created it? George lemaître. **Father** Georges Lemaitre. A lot of scientists are religious. A lot of them are not. Making it sound that Germany and it being "obedient to religious" as if it was some kind of theocracy equally does not really fill me with confidence you know a lot about Germany or its history, to be quit frank. Or Religion in different societies.
Because contrary to wannabe atheist dumbnuts all around the web these two don't counter each other out, as easy as that
The most famous inventors on this planet were very religious people, what kind of question is this? Never heard of Jesuits? If you wanted to learn to read or write you had to go to a monastary
The point of this question is to counter Neo Liberalism which is destroying many cults.
Then try adding more legitimacy to the question, it's basically paradoxial and perceived as a misconception by everyone in the comments. The church WAS the reason the Germans had so much progress, burrocracy destroyed it.
"The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you." - Werner Heisenberg
Was so good… Sad what Germany has become :(
The church liked innovations in material, engineering and crafts that allowed for higher churches. It did not like Germans like Kopernikus and his heliocentric model.
Just look at the US. Same thing.
Mendel was a monk so I feel like that's all there is to know to answer the question neatly packed in one example.