25

I often hear that the rate of innovation was very high during ancient times in Greece and the Roman empire. I've also heard that the rate of innovation was reduced once the Catholic Church gained strength. Is there any clear evidence to support (or disprove) this?

Nerrolken
  • 7,692
  • 9
  • 41
  • 75
David
  • 1,676
  • 1
  • 17
  • 25
  • 2
    How does one measure such things?? – quant_dev Dec 03 '11 at 09:14
  • 4
    I haven't heard this regarding innovation, but I have heard it regarding science and natural philosophy, where the dominance of the catholic church quite clearly slowed down the progress (case in point: Galileo). – Lennart Regebro Dec 03 '11 at 12:10
  • @quant_dev I do not know how it can be measured. What I am sure of is that there will be no accurate measure (number of patents filed is not the solution), but there might be some inaccurate ways that gives a rough indication. – David Dec 03 '11 at 12:29
  • @LennartRegebro I have heard that myself, but one could argue that the great minds merely shifted their focus from theology to science and natural philosophy. Therefore, measuring innovation should arguably be a more neutral measure. – David Dec 03 '11 at 12:30
  • 3
    @LennartRegebro - Galileo thing wasn't quite as obvious a case of stifling innovation as anti-church propaganda would have you believe (and I have very little reason to like Catholics, so there's no bias there). – DVK Dec 03 '11 at 16:30
  • 4
    I don't have the references or time to assemble them so making it a comment. The innovation rate was affected but not necessarily/always in strictly causative way. The influences were partially economic (there was more leisure time for natural philosophy in Ancient Greece/Rome due to surplus); and partly geopolitical (less resources due to wars, invasions etc...).... – DVK Dec 03 '11 at 16:35
  • 1
    ... other influences were cultural competitiveness for intelligence as a resource (as David said, you could choose to be doing theology or natural science), many chose the former as more career enhancing OR seemingly "higher" calling - same way all the cool kids now in America want to be sports stars or actors and not scientists, and view some loser working for non-profit with more reverence than Bill Gates the nerd who funded that non-profit; so it's not strictly religious of an angle. – DVK Dec 03 '11 at 16:36
  • Also, it's not like innovation didn't happen - especially since 12th century. – DVK Dec 03 '11 at 16:38
  • 1
    @DVK: He was sentenced by the inquisition as a heretic for his scientific research. I though about making a question about it, but I'm sorry, DVK, but that is a pretty damn obvious case, and it is impossible for me to even write the question in a sane way. – Lennart Regebro Dec 04 '11 at 07:16
  • 7
    @LennartRegebro - he wasn't strictly speaking sentenced for his research. He was sentenced for telling the Church how to teach scripture. Also, it's not quite that the Church went after him for being a scientist. He was ratted on by fellow scientists whose toes he rather painfully stepped on (not quite Mr. Personality, he), and for a long while, he was being defended by the two consecutive Popes and a couple of Cardinals, who very extensively tried to keep him away from Inquisition - and more likely than not, in the end got hurt mostly due to political reasons. – DVK Dec 06 '11 at 04:38
  • 2
    @DVK: I'm sorry, but I have to say that this sounds like you are making up excuses. The reason he got sentenced was that his science undermined the authority of the church by showing it to be wrong. Obviously this is political, that's the whole point. The church controlled publishing and refused to let him publish a book on the subject, until he agreed to include arguments both for and against. But his book was very biased and made fun of the arguments against, so he ended up in court. That may have been stupid of him, but without the church trying to stop science, it wouldn't have happened. – Lennart Regebro Dec 06 '11 at 08:16
  • 1
    @DVK: In the end, the church delayed publishing of scientific works, and the punished that publication, because the science contradicted the church's tecahings. That is an open and shut case of the church slowing down and working against science. Claiming anything else requires serious blindfolds. – Lennart Regebro Dec 06 '11 at 08:18
  • This sort of question rouses strong passions because scientists and theologians don't see eye-to-eye today. When the Church had power? Innovation is cultural and an attribute that wasn't particularly relevant to goals of the established church. The chruch was by no means the only or most significant retardant of change but ignoring its well meaning repression is disingenuous. A portion of the modern populace can't square themselves with the paradigm of techno-progressivism which created their current standard of living. – LateralFractal Oct 15 '14 at 00:12

8 Answers8

40

It would be very interesting to see a chart of rate of innovation over time in western civilization.

Of course, this begs the question of what is "innovation". Do you count number of inventions? Do you give more weight to inventions that would have long lasting significance through history? Or ones that may have been less influential but providing a huge impact at the time? Or ones that represented great leaps in intellect? Do you count scientific discoveries as innovations if they had no immediate tangible effect on society?

For instance, the Romans were quite influential and important in Western history, but they certainly did not have anything resembling an R&D department (perhaps excepting in the gladiator pits). Yet they were skilled at productizing other civilization's innovations. Due to their omnipresence and the long duration of the empire they can be credited with a number of innovations yet I would still score their rate of innovation as quite low.

The Dark Ages following the Roman Empire (very roughly 500-1000 AD) were a time of low innovation certainly. A lot of knowledge simply disappeared during these times. This had nothing to do with religion however, and more to do with socio-political factors. If anything, the Irish monks deserve a huge share of credit for their work transcribing greek texts to keep that learning alive in the west.

The Middle Ages (loosely 1000-1500) in contrast were a period of increasing innovation. Part of this was rediscovering or relearning from the past, and I think they deserve credit for this! But this period also brought a number of completely new traditions in agriculture, art, medicine, economics, mathematics, politics, and so on which form the foundations of society today.

What role did the Church play during this period? If anything I would have to credit them as a promoter of innovation, or at least of higher education. The Catholic Church in this period was the only source of advanced education, and in fact many of the earliest philosophers, mathematicians, and proto-scientists were themselves clergy members. Much of the greatest art, sculpture, literature, and science of this middle period was arrived at due to the patronage of the church.

Galileo serves as a turning point. But I think it has less to do with him specifically, nor his particular findings, than the general trend of scientific skepticism and inquiry that Galileo and his peers represented, and the evolution of society to a more heterogeneous R&D environment. More specifically, prior to the invention of the printing press, transmission of knowledge depended upon scribes - of whom the Church had a distinct monopoly; with the printing press, they quickly lost that monopoly and had to resort to more conspicuous methods of exerting authority.

A demarcation point can also be found here. Prior to this, the general consensus of Church intellectuals would be that all philosophy, science, and mathematics could be derived to the Will of God. Any study of these topics could be equated to a study of God Himself. But at this point there was a general view that further investigation into these topics would serve to diminish God or at least increase questioning into His existence.

The Scientific Revolution, which followed the Middle Ages and was more part of (or at least foundation of) the Renaissance, saw the increased involvement of the Church as a reactionary suppressor of innovation. Questions continued to be raised that organized religion could not effectively answer. Thus, organized religion quite naturally shifted to a more suppressive relationship with knowledge. And that's what we tend to remember today.

As negative as I am on the Roman Catholic Church in general, I don't think they can be credited with anything more than a modest influence. In a few specific periods they were definitely detrimental, but in other periods they had a strong positive force.

Bryce
  • 5,941
  • 37
  • 49
  • 3
    Very nice answer, cogently and objectively presented. – Felix Goldberg May 04 '13 at 13:19
  • I would argue very hard against the characterization of RC as * reactionary suppressor of innovation*. There is preponderance if evidence to the contrary. For example RC was very interested in the field of astronomy. Galileo, Copernicus and many others can be raised as an example, but of actually RC UPHOLDING the scientific standards - Galileo was repeatedly asked to prove his thesis (which he couldn't; maybe Kepler would help him but Kepler AT THE SAME TIME was busy defending his mother against the accusations she was a witch, so we wouldn't know), Copernicus dedicated his work to the POPE. – AcePL Aug 05 '21 at 07:40
  • ... and only after his death his "De Revolutionibus..." was proscibed by the Inquisition, but AGAIN FOR MAKING UNFOUNDED CLAIMS. IOW: Copernicus claimed something he could not prove, so his books were corrected to reflect that. I wish today someone upheld any scientific standards the way RC did back then, because all we have today is double-standard, which is the only left, actually. Castel Gandolfo is an astronomical observatory, founded in 1774, at the time you link to increased suppression of innovation... As an RC myself I would never say RC to have just "modest influence". Honestly? – AcePL Aug 05 '21 at 07:47
  • Also RC was instrumental in preserving knowledge. Majority of writings we now have from Roman times, Ancient Greek and others we have only thanks to RC. Not only that, what we have is mostly preserved copies, and yet not many claim they were, for example, forged or invented, unlike what many modern scientists would say about, for example, Bible (which only until early 19th century was treated as important historical text). Also, because of much of very heavy work done by The Doctors of the Church we enjoy a faith that is soundly grounded in philosophy. Hard to call it suppression... – AcePL Aug 05 '21 at 07:55
23

Quite the contrary as Rodney Stark pointed out in The Victory of Reason - the Catholic church itself promoted most of the societal conditions that allowed the Middle Class to take hold, and in so doing also promote the nurture of science and industry.

Chief among these were personal property rights (stemming from the idea that we were God's stewards) and equality before God in all judicial matters (hence the rule of law). The ideas for patent and copyright also come out of respect for the Imago Dei in all men.

Stark also points out the explicitly Christian roots of the Renaissance, which stemmed from a religious effort to go ad fontes - back to the sources - first of Christianity (hence the glorification of Rome), then to the society in which Christianity flourished.

Stark spends a great deal of time talking about the factors that eventually led Southern Europe (Catholic) to eventually decline after the Reformation - and these mostly boil down to the Roman Catholic church siding with strong men who could protect the church over against the very ideals for which the church stood.

It's a good read and will make the case very persuasively.

Also, along these lines is How the Irish Saved Civilization by Thomas Cahill. There the thesis is that if it were not for the church in Ireland, we would have lost most of the learning and literature of Rome.

If you're looking to make the anti-clerical case, look to Edward Gibbon's polemic Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. He'll make the case, but most historians agree that it is a polemic moreso than a valid historical argument.

Affable Geek
  • 2,828
  • 2
  • 20
  • 26
  • Just curious, why the downvote? – Affable Geek Dec 15 '11 at 19:33
  • 4
    Reading through the comments above, I'm beginning to think the purpose of this question isn't to make an answer but fuel a fire. I'm disappointed, because the works I cite above will provide a lot of the statistics you're looking for. They just might not make the case some people want to make. – Affable Geek Dec 15 '11 at 21:23
  • 5
    I withdrew the downvote since looking back, it was unfair but I still disagree strongly with this answer for several reasons. 1. Christianity was dominant for nearly a 1000 years before conditions finally began to improve. That alone makes it hard to attribute any good changes to Christianity itself. Rather given the Inquisition and cases like Galileo, it seems more likely that the Catholic Church was either helpless (which I think is partly true) or wasn't interested in any improvement of the general welfare. – Opt Dec 16 '11 at 06:36
  • 1
    Further, I'd argue that the good things that the church did accomplish (like preserving the ancient manuscripts, being a center of learning during the late Middle Ages) were not due to Christianity but because the Church was expected to be somewhat of a scholarly institution. 2. It promotes Christianity as being somehow special compared to Islam or Judaism when the substantive differences between them are negligible. – Opt Dec 16 '11 at 06:36
  • 6
  • Given the historical and modern clashes between science and religion, I don't think the answer really makes a case for religion not hampering innovation. Given Stark's writings against the very well tested theory of evolution, I would personally take anything he writes with a grain of salt. 4. I don't think the answer gives a sense of the different viewpoints out there. One can hold a view not as extreme as Gibbon's which is still critical of the influence of religion on innovation.
  • – Opt Dec 16 '11 at 06:36
  • 4
    Last comment, the historical reason for patents and copyright was to promote innovation. Attributing it to the "respect for Imago Dei in all men" (which I doubt given the monstrosities committed by humans) is like attributing the invention of the nuclear bomb to H.G. Wells since he talks about a very powerful bomb in his novel. I would argue similarly against your other contentions regarding property rights and the rule of law. – Opt Dec 16 '11 at 06:41
  • 3
    this answer makes some pretty interesting claims, specifically the idea that personal property rights was borne out of the church. I'd love to see that argued, as I know our western tradition of property rights has a very strong Lockean foundation. I will check out Rodney Stark's works, but from his background it seems like he has quite the agenda. Also I'd love to see some sources showing that Gibbon's work is not real history. – ihtkwot May 06 '12 at 16:24
  • 2
    @Sid - This would make a stellar question, but my understanding was that the historical reason for patents and copyrights was for Kings to have something of financial worth (the exclusive right to manufacture certian things) which they could give out as favors. It was rare that they were awarded to the first person to come up with the idea, as is now common. This is why the USA founders didn't like them, and only allowed them to be granted "for a limited time", and for certian purposes. – T.E.D. Jun 20 '12 at 18:39
  • @ihtkwot of course it was not a Church's innovation. The Church itself originates as a corporation under Empire's corporate law. – Anixx May 01 '13 at 03:37
  • @Anixx - "The Church itself originates as a corporation under Empire's corporate law." Please source this, well. –  Jul 24 '13 at 22:54
  • 1
    +1 - very discouraging that so many today fail to grasp the importance of the Church (and religious institutions at large) in the development of modern civilization. So typical of the contemporary and so very arrogant secular humanism that has captured the imagination of the academic community today, and has done a great deal of damage thereby. Selectively embracing certain periods and influences in History while rejecting or ignoring others is effectively revisionism and a represents a gross distortion or ignorance of History. –  Jul 24 '13 at 23:25
  • 2
    @ihtkwot - the western concepts of property rights are found in English Common law, which predates Locke by hundreds of years and is deeply sourced in Agrarian, Christian, nay Talmudic traditons. The medieval Monks studied the Talmud, and many of their ideas are derived therefrom. –  Jul 25 '13 at 05:03
  • @Histophile "To the casual observer in the Roman world, Christian communities in the cities throughout the Roman Empire looked like voluntary associations, of which there were so many during that time. Just like these associations, Christian communities held periodical gatherings; they had their own ritual initiation, rules of conduct and requirements for membership. During their meetings Christians held a meal that involved the recitation of prayers and drinking of wine; they listened to speeches; they prayed and sang hymns. – Anixx Jul 25 '13 at 05:17
  • They also elected fellow members to serve as officers and administrators of the association’s affairs. Just like other associations, the Christian congregation had a common fund containing the contributions of its members; it was used to meet the needs of its members and provide a decent burial for its members. Just as devotees of Asclepius were called Asclepiasts and those of Isis called Isiaciasts, the Christians were called Cristianoi. – Anixx Jul 25 '13 at 05:17
  • About 200 CE Tertullian compares the meals of Christian communities with meals of various religious associations such as the collegia Saliorum and the associations for the Dionysus and Serapis cults. Tertullian also designates the religious community of the Valentinians as a society, collegium, with many members.73 Evidently, Christian communities were regarded as a sort of voluntary association, in particular as a religious cult association, both by Christians themselves and non-Christians. – Anixx Jul 25 '13 at 05:18
  • https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13780/Alikin proefschrift.pdf – Anixx Jul 25 '13 at 05:24
  • 1
    @Anixx - This proves? Nothing with regard to your assertion. All it proves it that the church was... a church! –  Jul 25 '13 at 06:47
  • @Histophile Legally Christian communities were known as sodalitates. – Anixx Jul 25 '13 at 08:12
  • @Anixx - therefore? You asserted: "The Church itself originates as a corporation under Empire's corporate law." - but have yet to bring anything to support such an assertion about the church's origin. –  Jul 25 '13 at 08:58