Oskatat
Squire
Looking at that question scientifically you can't base the statement "science was held back" on a comparison with a non-existent hypothetical future. It also sidesteps a definition of "scientific progress" and makes it into something supposedly easy to measure.
First, a short comparison. Around the year 1000 most people agre that the middle east was more advanced than europe and so was the far east (china area), both with different religious backgrounds. In that respect you could say that the christian area was behind scientifically.
However, by 1800 the dominant religions hadn't changed, but the scientific gap had closed a lot. By the start of WW2, europe was leading or at least equal in many sciences, aviation for example. During this period, the religions stayed pretty much the same. The conclusion must be that religion is not the decisive factor in scientific progress
A second part is that the common stereotype of scientific progress standing still in 'the dark ages' is simply wrong. It may have lacked people turning practical applications into a coherent theory, or a theory into practical applications, or it may have lacked he means to spread discoveries as they happened. If you think in more stereotypes, scientific progress is the moment where people say 'wow, that is new'. Then yes, it was a dark age indeed and all the discoveries were made later. If you think of scientific progress as continuous, the 'wow moments' made possible only because the foundation had been in place before, it was an age of improvements. Maybe not breakthroughs, but invaluable nontheless
A lot of newtons work can be found directly applied in the construction of cathedrals. If you set them in a chronological order you can even see the new principles and improved understanding of the forces involved. Noone put it in a theory untill later. People marvel at the cathedrals and ofcourse the plate armors of the time. And just as with the cathedrals don't seem to see the advances in metalurgy apparent in weapons and armor, ever stronger, lighter and more likely to retain its shape under stress rather than bend or break, or the improved understanding of physics in ever more complicated or improved ballistic weapons. And what about the printing press?
A lot of the 'scientific progress' from the era after 1500 is based on and would be impossible without the understanding of nature already in existence earlier, impossible without the advances in construction made by building cathedrals and castles, impossible without the improvements in metalurgy made by an arms race.
An easy example is the steam engine (some people may know where this is going, they read the same books as I did). It's been around for a long, long time in its basic form. It could open a heavy but perfectly ballanced temple door if you lit a fire on the altar (and the water resevoir was full). What it wasn't and what it would remain not was practical. It required insane amounts of fuel if put to serious work and had a tendency to burst. Improvements in metalurgy allowed for higher pressure, so it had more power, but that didn't solve the two main problems. What made it break through were a safety valve, taken from pressure cookers, to stop it bursting and a condensors slightly seperate from the heated area to improve heat efficiency, for which the principle was well known, just noone had thought to apply it to steam devices yet. So where is that wow moment, the great breakthrough? It doesn't exist, but it makes for a more understandable story, one that we, humans, like better. What it was most definately not was a new invention.
First, a short comparison. Around the year 1000 most people agre that the middle east was more advanced than europe and so was the far east (china area), both with different religious backgrounds. In that respect you could say that the christian area was behind scientifically.
However, by 1800 the dominant religions hadn't changed, but the scientific gap had closed a lot. By the start of WW2, europe was leading or at least equal in many sciences, aviation for example. During this period, the religions stayed pretty much the same. The conclusion must be that religion is not the decisive factor in scientific progress
A second part is that the common stereotype of scientific progress standing still in 'the dark ages' is simply wrong. It may have lacked people turning practical applications into a coherent theory, or a theory into practical applications, or it may have lacked he means to spread discoveries as they happened. If you think in more stereotypes, scientific progress is the moment where people say 'wow, that is new'. Then yes, it was a dark age indeed and all the discoveries were made later. If you think of scientific progress as continuous, the 'wow moments' made possible only because the foundation had been in place before, it was an age of improvements. Maybe not breakthroughs, but invaluable nontheless
A lot of newtons work can be found directly applied in the construction of cathedrals. If you set them in a chronological order you can even see the new principles and improved understanding of the forces involved. Noone put it in a theory untill later. People marvel at the cathedrals and ofcourse the plate armors of the time. And just as with the cathedrals don't seem to see the advances in metalurgy apparent in weapons and armor, ever stronger, lighter and more likely to retain its shape under stress rather than bend or break, or the improved understanding of physics in ever more complicated or improved ballistic weapons. And what about the printing press?
A lot of the 'scientific progress' from the era after 1500 is based on and would be impossible without the understanding of nature already in existence earlier, impossible without the advances in construction made by building cathedrals and castles, impossible without the improvements in metalurgy made by an arms race.
An easy example is the steam engine (some people may know where this is going, they read the same books as I did). It's been around for a long, long time in its basic form. It could open a heavy but perfectly ballanced temple door if you lit a fire on the altar (and the water resevoir was full). What it wasn't and what it would remain not was practical. It required insane amounts of fuel if put to serious work and had a tendency to burst. Improvements in metalurgy allowed for higher pressure, so it had more power, but that didn't solve the two main problems. What made it break through were a safety valve, taken from pressure cookers, to stop it bursting and a condensors slightly seperate from the heated area to improve heat efficiency, for which the principle was well known, just noone had thought to apply it to steam devices yet. So where is that wow moment, the great breakthrough? It doesn't exist, but it makes for a more understandable story, one that we, humans, like better. What it was most definately not was a new invention.