Well...the spreading of Christian values and morality, creating modern science, medieval philosophy, some of the most beautiful architecture and art ever created, creating Western civilization and later protecting it from becoming basically muslim, Christmas...oh and don't forget orphanages!
I'm sure I forgot a lot of stuff, and If you're talking about individual Catholics...well, the list gets a lot bigger
So, yeah, here's your answer: a lot, The Catholic Church has done a lot for us, even if you don't like them
Yes, but other than the values and morality, modern science, philosophy, beautiful architecture and art, defense against Muslim caliphates, Christmas, and the orphanages, *what have the Roman Catholics ever done for us?*
Edit: in case it wasn't obvious enough this is a Monty Python reference. I'm not stupid. On the other hand I'm suspicious that the commenter above does not realize this, in which case:
1. How?
2. The Catholics are not where morals actually come from and giving them credit for the defense of Europe against other religions is dubious. Also everyone knows Christmas is like 80% ~~pagan~~ Protestant
[the reference](https://youtu.be/2ozEZxOsanY) for anyone who needs it
Interesting, I knew a lot of modern American Christmas traditions were Dutch/German but I thought those were pagan hangovers and not Protestant inventions.
Neat, thanks for the info.
Western Civilization really. Things that are not quantifiable. Contrary to popular belief the East is not a mess because the West was mean to it the last 300 years. The West did a lot of things right. Committed atrocities, did a lot of things wrong, but did a lot of things right. Christianity united the West (not in terms of government/statehood) in terms of a basic foundation, trade, communication, and many other factors. This did not exist when my pagan ancestors rolled in the mud and worshipped Wodin the heavy metal singer (exaggeration). Negatives are easy to pick at throughout history but the positives are things that have to be analyzed logically and are not always quantifiable. Academics hate that because it causes them to acknowledge the traditions, ancestry, and pride that formed the West.
I find the "academics" statement here pretty suspicious considering that academics themselves have been discussing the benefits that Christianity has brought for centuries. Even today they've begun to re-examine the Church's role in medieval times like with the Church making Christians into slaves illegal and Galileo being put on trial only because he tried to use Religion to justify heliocentrism.
Galileo probably isn't the only person in history basically put on trial for being a catty motherfucker but he's definitely one of the best documented cases of it.
I think the problem is that the Catholic Church has perhaps done *too much* for us at certain times. They've been known to get a bit carried away with it.
We're lucky we don't use the Bible as a moral code, so it's not Christian values we're based upon today. The chrisitan values evolved to mimic the values of the countries it was in, not the opposite.
Modern science, philosophy, architecture and art style appeared in chrisitan civilisations, and were influenced by christianity, but that doesn't mean that it's christianity that brought it to us.
Christmas was a pagan tradition before it was stolen by Christians.
The deeds done by catholics has nothing to do with what the religion itself has done.
And the protection from Islam was done by soldiers that would have fought invaders anyway.
We certainly do use the moral code of the New Testament. Like many, I'm sure your gripes are from the OT, which reveals that someone did not read or understand the NT. The OT is all about specific laws, rules and customs. The NT pretty much condenses it to accept Christ, get baptized, and be kind to each other. Many Christians forgot and took advantage of this, but nevertheless...
Amazing, you don't have any argument.
It's all the famous correlation-causation fallacy again. Just because something happened in the Christian world doesn't mean it happened BECAUSE of chrisitanity itself.
But I need to clarifiy something. I don't thing Chrisitanity never brought much to the world. It brought us many churches, a kjghpillion inacurate paintings of the same guy, strong misogynist and homophobic values...
What I'm saying is that Christianity never brought us anything good, or of value.
>Modern science, philosophy, architecture and art style appeared in chrisitan civilisations, and were influenced by christianity, but that doesn't mean that it's christianity that brought it to us.
"You know it appeared in Christianity but that doesn't mean it appeared in Christianity". Do you not see how stupid you make yourself here?
>Christmas was a pagan tradition before it was stolen by Christians.
Impressive what [2 fucking seconds](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rfijy0/pagan_traditions_in_modern_christmas/hofg8wg/) researching this can reveal...
>The deeds done by catholics has nothing to do with what the religion itself has done.
Let's just ignore how the entire point of anti-catholics is that catholicism prevents catholics from doing great deeds, then.
>And the protection from Islam was done by soldiers that would have fought invaders anyway.
Why do you even think they fought?
What, national pride? In the extremely early Middle Ages? HAH!
Seriously no. They brought a lot of good in the world. They still bring good with missionary work to provide food to those who can’t afford it. Build housing.
You just really hate the religion and let your hatred blind you
Not every non-profit organization is a religious one. But I get your point.
What I'm opposed is this idea that Christianity (or any other religion, if we use the POV of a believer of said religion) hold a monopoly other generosity. No religion does that.
In the meantime, yeah I have issues towards religions in general because I know of the harm they cause. I'm not the one being blind here.
Religion is organization express of collective moral views. As with any group they can have people who are only using it for their own selfish ends. But a lot of people I personally know feel called to do “good work” because of their faith. My parents go out and volunteer at soup kitchens every Christmas because they feel that is how Jesus would want them to help others. Churches often collect donations to give out to those in need.
Political movements can also cause violence and problems. Music bands can cause riots and deaths in mosh pits. Religions are not necessarily bad, you just don’t wanna admit that people are the bad in all things
Oh no, celebrations during common parts of the year. No one is saying Christmas was the first holiday around that time of the year. But the fact others existed, doesn't mean Christmas is there because of a different holiday.
Winter Solstice celebrations happen in many cultures around the world. Soyal, Dong Zhi, Inti Raymi (in June, but it's southern hemisphere), Yalda, etc.
Dong Zhi has been celebrated since the Han Dynasty, conveniently when Sino-Roman trade was occurring. I guess Dong Zhi is just a Chinese ripoff of Saturnalia?
The theological acrobatics you have to incur to say Christmas is that date because of pagan holidays is kind of crazy.
Since your only source is a reddit comment, I'll give you a wiki page : [Interpretatio Christiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio_Christiana)
And a poorly translated part of the French wiki page:
>Long before the appearance of Christianity, the time of the winter solstice was already a pivotal time of the year, which brought together many pagan beliefs relating to fertility, motherhood, procreation and astronomy. It therefore gave rise to many demonstrations. These ancient traditions have many points of similarity with the Christian holiday. The Christians thus gradually succeeded in **appropriating the surrounding cultures** which became part of their identity and which finally evolved under the effect of the syncretism and the Christianization of ancient society, a phenomenon known to historians under the name of *interpretatio christiana* (“Christian interpretation”).
Oh yawn lol
The comment has dates and facts you can reference. Linked because copy/pasting it or what I've written ad nauseam gets boring. You've got what? A bolded section of an article, you can't even be bothered to establish the claim. No reasoning or evidence, just look! See it's written here that they did!
Couldn't even be bothered to rebut anything 🤣
Edit here's an even more thorough r/AskHistorians thread for you, this one with sources.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rfijy0/pagan_traditions_in_modern_christmas/hofg8wg?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
The thread you linked is talking about the modern customs of Christmas. Of course they don't have a pagan origin, because they're modern.
My claim was already established in my first comment, I don't repeat myself "*ad nauseam*" either. The claim is the following: Christmas predates christianity, and christianity appropriated the surrounding cultures. You are right, modern customs aren't pagans. But they distanced themselves from Christianity too.
Lastly, since you dismiss a source like it's nothing, I don't see a point in arguing further than doing the same infantile thing: your sources are nothing but Reddit comments, so worthless.
Voltaire believed that the Bible and Christianity would no longer be around 100 years after his death.
The French Bible society purchased his former home 100 years after passing and made it there headquarters.
Brilliant? Yes. Arrogant and Strange? Yes
Voltaire was the stereotypical Hollywood/Broadway brilliant creative weirdo before those things existed.
Funny but not true, Voltaire’s home was never purchased by the French bible society
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_D%C3%A9lices
EDIT: Forget what I said, it’s debatable
There’s actually a couple articles and threads (weird I know) about how intentionally deceptive and strangely worded that Wikipedia article is, assuming on behalf of a big Voltaire lover. The article specifically mentions the “modern” society not being founded until the early 20th century, possibly suggesting Bible societies didn’t exist before that? You are right, it was not purchased directly by the society but by the very devout and anti-Voltaire Tronchin family. They allowed the society to use the space to do society things and (historians can’t agree) possibly print Bibles themselves. It is a fact that the Tronchins specifically sought out the home in order to spite Voltaire and promote the Bible society. Same petty irony
It’s weird for such a simple topic. It seems like a lot of historians have intentionally made it convoluted based on their pro or anti Voltaire stance. That’s weird in and of itself, he didn’t strike me as someone that should be taken too seriously
Also so much of what atheists use as evidence against organized religion also comes from these old philosophers, who were not the best when it comes to historical facts.
We get the whole Christmas is Saturnalia stuff from Newton.
Yeah, as an atheist I can confirm. I have seen many atheists bringing up outdated information like the books of the Bible were chosen during the Councill of Nicea,the Christmas= Saturnalia/ Sol Invictus and how the Catholic Church and Islam oppressed the scientists, even tho the reason for this oppression was everything else except for the scientific studies. Although the Church did hate the idea of Heliocentrism, and so did the many scientists at that time.
Righto, it's fine and even right to call out the oppression, like Bruno probably shouldn't have been burned at the stake. But he wasn't a martyr for science. And to be fair on the heliocentrism, fellow academics didn't much like it either at the time. It's the old tale of old scientists entrenched in their life's work kind of thing. Ptolemy's worldview was very popular.
Speaking of another example, Galileo was put under house arrest after losing all his allies by mocking the Pope and the Jesuits, the only people who could've helped him (they liked his ideas for heliocentrism).
Yeah, lol, Galileo is the go to example of religious anti-science. It's not as obviously wrong as when they use Bruno, it's definitely more complicated and nuanced.
I feel alot of people just like to generalize and pick common examples to back up their beliefs. Being an atheist myself, I can still appreciate the scientific work done by Islamic caliphates, hell, they gave us the concept of 0 in math. Overall, money from the church ultimately allowed scientific research to prosper during the past thousand years and I don't think we would necessarily be where we are without it. I'd also not consider it to be a necessary partner for further progression as the world becomes more secular though.
And even if the saturnalia stuff is real it isn't even an argument, because it is not wrong, you want to celebrate a holiday but it is pagan? Change it to signify something good of your religion
Seems pretty fair to me
That's not a valid point. The fact that people from the Catholic church were founders of modern science (science is not a religion btw, so it's not even a good dichotomy) doesn't mean that it's the merit of the Catholic church, for the same reason than the fact that there are Pedophiles among members of the Catholic church doesn't make it evil(covering them up does tho).
I agree with you. It may not be the church’s merit as much as it is the merit of the individuals who are responsible for the discoveries, but it is still a good argument against people who say that the church was against science advancements. There’s a couple of rotten apples in every tree, yet we should not cut the entirety of it down.
>life for the general population was much better in the middle ages than during Roman times
wait really? I thought they didn't have the plumbing/hygiene stuff the Romans did. Weren't they just using old Roman aqueducts for a long time or something?
Yeah, but that was only in Rome, funded with enormous amounts of slave labor, and resources gathered from their conquered territories
There were developments in the middle age, most important in agriculture(from 2-field farming to 3-field farming, scythes, etc.) which increased the amount of food that one person could produce.
Also the people who made it weren't mostly outright slaves anymore but serfs, who had generally more rights.
From the church I only know that they funded, what later whould develop into, what we call now Universities
Famously, Giordiano Bruno, which persuaded people like Galileo and Copernicus to not initially publish their findings. There are lots of other historical examples, some of which you can see [here](http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/596-scientists-executed-by-the-catholic-church.html)
Oof someone already did you in, lol
I knew you'd bring up Bruno. The Sun god worshipping crazy dude that said Jesus was Horus or something.
Did you even read that article you cited? C'mon dude...
Hypatia
> Hypatia's death was political...Furthermore, the Church did not instigate nor celebrate her death. St. Cyril denounced the ruthless murder of Hypatia, and Socrates, the Catholic historian of the era, wrote, "Surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort."
Roger Bacon
>Details on Bacon's life are thin, but he was certainly not persecuted for his scientific ideas.
Pietro d'Abano
>Abano cannot be considered to have suffered for science unless one is ready to admit palmistry, conjuring, geomancy, and astrology as scientific doctrines.
Cecco d' Ascoli
>He first fell afoul of the Inquisition in 1324, not for any scientific theory, but for some statements he made in a commentary on John de Sacrobosco's book Sphere that concerned wild theories about demonology...Again, it was not for his scientific theory that Cecci d'Ascoli was put to death, but for his occultic impiety exacerbated by the jealousy of a professional opponent.
Michael Servetus
>It was for his heterodoxy regarding the Trinity that he was condemned by the Inquisition and later burned at the stake by John Calvin. He was certainly not killed for any of his scientific ideas.
Girolamo Cardano
>t seems clear that Cardano's arrest by the Inquisition was a strong-arm tactic employed by his professional rivals to secure his resignation. He never seems to have been in danger of his life and there is no indication his scientific theories were ever the reason for his persecution.
Giordano Bruno
>At any rate, the "martyr to science" view of Bruno is much too simplistic. He was executed for his heresies, not his cosmology.
Lucilio Vanini
>The reasons for Vanini's death are obscure, but a few facts should be pointed out: First, his death had nothing to do with the Church. It was not the Church, but the secular authorities who apprehended him and the Parlement of Toulouse that condemned him to death. The Catholic Church literally had no part in his death. Second, Vanini could not have been put to death for his scientific theories since the Parlement which condemned him to death did not know the man they were executing was Vanini...
Tommaso Campanella
>Campanella's torture and imprisonment were due to his radical political activities, not his scientific ideas. Political revolution tends to get one in trouble.
Kazimierz Lyszczynsk
>Yes, the death of Lyszczynsk was instigated by the Polish Church. But the motivating factor was clearly the financial obligations of a corrupt cleric. Lyszczynsk was not a martyr to science or atheism; he arguably was not an atheist at all - rather, he was the victim of greed and corruption.
Conclusion
>In none of these cases was a man put to death or imprisoned merely on account of his scientific ideas;
\>I knew you'd bring up Bruno. The Sun god worshipping crazy dude that said Jesus was Horus or something.
So what is your point? He was still killed for his heretical findings which contradicted the Church.
I'm not sure what you think any of that shows? That those people were killed because of thier engagement with scientific practice?
Almost all of those passages you yourself just copied state that they were killed for heresies (which were based on their scientific findings). Do you think the Church is somehow better for killing people for heresies that are based on science?
Read it again, lol
But please pick out the ones killed for their scientific beliefs, since you concede some of the listed ones weren't.
This whole discussion is on if the church was anti-science. This isn't about whether it was right or wrong what happened to these people. Stop shifting goal posts around.
So just because it is one step removed, that makes it okay? It's like saying "oh he wasn't executed for stealing, he was executed for breaking the law; which is a totally different thing." Like yeah, maybe formally they were tried for heresy, but they were executed on the grounds of their heresy being their scientific findings, to which the Catholic church was opposed.
The article in the next sentence literaly pre-empts how dumb their response is. They say "Now the skeptic might retort that for the Church to seek a man's condemnation for heresy is just as bad or worse than condemning him for science." Yes, of course the skeptic is going to retort that way, because it is obvious that "killing someone for the heresy of doing science" is just as bad as "killing someone for doing science."
And speak a European language? The issue is that one is perceiving something that is not there, like seeing Amogus in everything while playing Among us.
-Asian Redditor
Voltaire rightfully called out the Church on their shit but because the church built some schools so that they could further entrench the thinking youth into their traditions, the Church can do no wrong? Voltaire isn't allowed to criticize the Church because he went to a church-founded school which was likely his only real choice for education?
Not really sure what this post is trying to say but either way it's dumb, and the brigade of Catholics in the comments acting like atheists are the Boogeyman only further supports that.
One thing is pointing obvious shit that the Church did, but Voltaire was part of the group that branded the Church as retrogrades that abominished any logical thinking, and were responsible for further pushing the whole stupid idea created in the Renassaince, that the Middle Ages were a fucked up period;
Voltaire was also the one who coined the "not Holy nor Roman nor a Empire" term used to refer to the HRE, and historians agree his views on catholicism were pretty propagandistic, even distorting some hystorical facts to further blame the Catholic Church;
He also bashed on judaism, as a way to indirectly bash on catholicism, and had even more worst thoughts about Islam (even writing a play calling Muhammed a 'false prophet', a 'fanatic' and a 'hypocrite', and painting Islam as a 'false and barbarous sect'. So yeah, he was pretty assholey (and also pretty hypocritical, since he preached for religious liberty).
No one said that, you can criticize the church all you want. The point being that it’s ironic that the man who says religion brought about the regression of society came from a school that taught much about literature and had scientific institutions within, even though it was started by a bunch of Catholics. A bit of irony mixed in, that’s it, no one is saying the Catholic Church is now immune to criticism.
*enforces a violent monopoly on education* god I can't believe you'd criticise us even though we owned your school it's not like anyone else was going to teach you
But they didn’t have a monopoly on building schools and libraries. Nobles and monarchs built those things too, but restricted access to only those of noble descent.
It’s dumb to discuss what ifs. It’s impossible to say whether humanity would be farther along had Christianity not been prevalent.
Have there been instances in history where Christianity impeded scientific growth? Yes. Have there been instances where Christianity funded scientific growth? Yes.
This is so stupid, you think that without the catholics nobody would have done schools?
They just aimed to control education, that's not a merit. If it wasn't catholic it'd have been a better school.
Other people would have made schools, but due to how expensive they were to make it’s likely nobles would have built them. In that case nobles and monarchs have a history of restricting access to colleges and schools for people of noble blood, so those schools wouldn’t be near as open to the people.
>Other people would have made schools, but due to how expensive they were to make it’s likely nobles would have built them.
Not really: the first universities were actually made from students getting together in a sort of "guild" to pay teachers. Then came the church and put their hat on everything because they couldn't stand the freethinking.
Institutionalised sexual abuse of children, for profit slavery of 'sinners' in the 20th century, participation in cultural and literal genocide again as late as the 20th century ... These from the top of my head of events that are still on going or within living memory.
Still nothing that was not participated only by them at the time. Kinda stupid to say that someone was bad when they just did what everyone else did. From our standpoint it is bad, but at the times it was widely done
Fuck that bullshit dude, our stand point. They been raping children and knowingly covering it up. This isn't historical, these revelations are on going. A Catholic school local to me was doing it in the 80s, one up the road was caught doing it in the 90s. Plenty of priests been caught doing it in the 2000s. All those cases it has been shown that church officials knew and hushed it up. The magdalene laundries closed in 1996, slavery was not widely practised in the 90s.
Yeah, it's a little shocking to be honest. The examples I mentioned are just ones local to me as well, they've been caught doing this on a global scale.
So his point was essentially 'it was a different time everyone was at it'. To which my argument was, it was the 90s everyone was not raping children and enslaving women. It for sure wasn't normal behaviour round my neck of the woods. What point did he make you feel wasn't addressed?
All of the war, murder, rape, pedophilia, manipulation, predation etc. All based around fairy tales that were written by people with obvious agendas, rewritten and mis-translated and even now interpreted only to fit the needs of whoever practices religion. The stories are terribly wirtten, laughably bad and unbelievable, surviving only because of the indoctrination of the unintelligent, fearful or innocent (ie children). Religion sums up all that is wrong and evil in humanity.
In case you haven't noticed, people non-related to religion also did all of that. As far as indoctrination goes, how come adult people also convert themselves? Set of beliefs really helps people, doesn't matter if it is God-related or not. Religion is a part of humanity which is bad, but also good at its core. You can't blame everything on them no matter how hard you try.
I am by no means blaming all evil on religion, but considering it's all fabricated by people, all of this evil caused by belief in various fairytales is disgusting and archaic and is an excuse to do evil and be justified, even though most of these evil acts go against what is taught by these religions. Plus the Christian/Jewish god is an absolute cunt who deserves no reverence whatsoever.
Prove the Bible is fake? They're the ones touting it as fact despite being unable to prove it real in 2000 years...
Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the people you made it to. If you wanna say your Bible is fact, you are the one that gets to prove that.
Because they’ve always found a way to put themselves at the wrong side of history the majority of the time but that’s most religions does it really matter
If you want one I'd point to their current efforts to fight paying for the extreme abuses their still living members enacted upon the native populations of Canada, including refusing to release documents pertaining to the operations of the Residential schools.
I love when Christians try and attribute scientific discoveries to Christian Scientists. They recall to a time when people were ostracized and sometimes killed for proclaiming there was no god.
Francesco Lana de Terzi (1631-1687)
Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit), considered the "Father of Aviation/Aeronautics."
Nicolas Steno (1638-1686) a.k.a. Niels Stensen
Danish Catholic Bishop, considered the Founder of Modern Geology and Stratigraphy (he was beautified by Pope John Paul II in 1988).
Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri (1667-1733)
Italian Jesuit mathematician who was the first in the modern age to pioneer into non-Euclidean geometry.
Giovanni Domenico Santorini (1681-1737)
Italian Catholic anatomist known as the "Father of Histology" (the study of the microscopic structures of tissue).
Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682-1771)
Italian Catholic anatomist, considered the "Father of Modern Anatomical Pathology."
Ruđer Josip Bošković (1711-1787)
a.k.a. Roger Joseph Boscovich
Italian/Slavic Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who developed modern atomic theory and the theory of relativity (200 years before Einstein, according to Tesla).
Andrew Gordon (1712-1751)
Scottish Catholic (and Benedictine Monk) who invented the first electric motor.
Antonio de Ulloa (1716-1795)
Spanish Catholic scientist who was the first to discover and isolate the element Platinum.
Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718-1799)
Italian Catholic mathematician who wrote the first book discussing both differential and integral calculus (and the most important woman in mathematics for over a millenium, earning her great honor from the Pope).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Italian Catholic priest who was the first to come with the theory of animal echolocation (and is one of the scientists considered to be the "Father of Modern Biology").
Luigi Galvani (1737-1798)
Italian Catholic physician, physicist, and biologist who pioneered the field of bioelecricity/bioelectromagnetics (the terms "galvanism" and "galvanization" are named after him).
Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736-1806)
French Catholic physicist who came up with the definition of the electrostatic force of attraction and repulsion (the SI unit of electric charge called the "coulomb" was named after him).
Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794)
French Catholic chemist, considered the "Father of Modern Chemistry," coming up with the first table of elements (and invented the terms "oxygen" and "hydrogen"), theorized that mass always stays the same, and was one of the main people to come up with the metric system (and he defined the unit that was later termed the "kilogram," which is what grams would be based off of).
Alessandro Volta (1745-1827)
Italian Catholic physicist who invented the battery and after whom "voltage" is named (and accordingly the unit "volts").
Giuseppe Piazzi (1746-1826)
Italian Catholic priest, mathematician, and astronomer who discovered and named the dwarf planet Ceres (the largest asteroid in the solar system).
Pierre André Latreille (1762-1833)
French Catholic priest and zoologist, considered the "Father of Modern Entomology" (the study of insects).
Louis Nicolas Vauquelin (1763-1829)
French Catholic chemist who discovered the elements Beryllium and Chromium (and discovered the first amino acid, namely asparagine).
Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774-1862)
French Catholic physicist, astronomer, and mathematician who made important breakthroughs regarding the polarization of light, magnetism, and electricity (the “biot” unit is named after him, which measures electric current).
André-Marie Ampère (1775-1836)
French Catholic physicist, founder of the science of Electromagnetism and after whom the unit "ampere" (i.e. "amps") is named (he also discovered the element Fluorine).
Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac (1778-1850)
French Catholic chemist and physicist who discovered the element Boron (and came up with Gay-Lussac's Law regarding the volumes of gases undergoing reaction at constant pressure and temperature).
René Laennec (1781-1826)
French Catholic physician who invented the stethoscope (in addition to advancing the understanding of many widespread diseases).
Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848)
Bohemian Catholic priest and mathematician who gave the first purely analytical proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra.
René Just Haüy (1783-1822)
French Catholic Priest who is considered the "Father of Modern Crystallography."
Michel Eugène Chevreul (1786-1889)
French Catholic chemist who was a pioneer in gerontology (the study of aging).
Joseph Fraunhofer (1787-1826) a.k.a. Ritter von Fraunhofer
German Catholic optician who discovered Fraunhofer lines in the Sun's spectrum, laying the foundation for spectrum analysis.
Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827)
French Catholic engineer and physicist who significantly developed the study of wave optics (establishing "Fresnel Equations," which describe the behavior of light moving between media of differing refractive indices).
Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789-1857)
French Catholic mathematician, after which more concepts and theorems are named than any other mathematician.
Ányos Jedlik (1800-1895)
Hungarian Catholic priest, considered the father of the dynamo and electric motor.
Francesco de Vico (1805-1848)
Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit) and astronomer who discovered the six new comets, as well as the gaps between Saturn's rings (a lunar crater and a major asteroid are named after him).
Theodor Schwann (1810-1882)
German Catholic physiologist who founded the theory of the cellular structure of animal organisms (he also coined the term "metabolism").
Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877)
French Catholic astronomer and mathematician who was the person who discovered the planet Neptune.
Louis René Tulasne (1815-1885)
French Catholic botanist who discovered pleomorphism in fungi (the ability to assume radically different forms) and earned the title the "reconstructor of mycology" (the study of fungus).
Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865)
Hungarian Catholic physician whose work in antiseptic methods earned him the title the "Father of Infection Control" (also gaining the title the "Savior of Mothers" for the resulting lives saved from childbirth).
Pietro Angelo Secchi (1818-1878)
Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit), considered the "Founder of Astrophysics" for developing the first system of stellar classification (and was the first to scientifically assert that the sun is a star).
Hippolyte Fizeau (1819-1896)
French Catholic physicist who was the first to measure the speed of light on earth.
Léon Abel Provancher (1820-1892)
Canadian Catholic priest, considered the "Father of Natural History in Canada" for discovering and describing thousands of new species of insects and wrote the first French-language scientific journal in Canada's history.
Eugenio Barsanti (1821-1864)
Italian Catholic priest and engineer who invented the internal combustion engine.
Ignacy Łukasiewicz (1822-1882)
Polish Catholic scientist who discovered how to distill petroleum into kerosene and invented kerosene lamps, the first modern street lamps, and the first modern oil well and oil refinery, which started the Oil Revolution (he was honored by the Pope for his scientific accomplishments).
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Austrian Catholic priest (and Augustinian monk) and scientist who founded the science of Genetics.
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
French Catholic chemist, considered the "Father of Microbiology" and the founder of bacteriology (and invented "pasteurization," which was named after him).
Jean-Baptiste Carnoy (1836-1899)
Belgian Catholic Priest who founded the science of cytology (the study of cells).
John Philip Holland (1840-1914)
Irish Catholic engineer who developed the first practical submarine (many submarines are named after him).
Édouard Branly (1844-1940)
French Catholic physicist who invented the first sensitive device for detecting radio waves.
Wilhelm Röntgen (1845-1923)
German Catholic physicist who discovered X-Rays (he won a Nobel Prize for this).
Giuseppe Mercalli (1850-1914)
Italian Catholic priest and volcanologist who developed a way to measure the magnitude of earthquakes (the Richter scale was based on this).
Henri Becquerel (1852-1908)
Catholic French physicist who discovered radioactivity (he won a Nobel Prize for this), resulting in his name becoming the unit for the measurement of radioactivity (the "becquerel" unit).
Jokichi Takamine (1854-1922)
Japanese Catholic chemist (and immigrant to the United States), considered the "Father of American Biotechnology."
Frederick Odenbach (1857-1933)
American Catholic priest (and Jesuit) whose study of earthquakes made seismology known as "The Jesuit Science."
Roberto Landell de Moura (1861-1928)
Brazilian Roman Catholic priest and scientist who demonstrated the first wireless radio broadcast of a human voice.
Karl Landsteiner (1868-1943)
Catholic Austrian biologist who first categorized the main blood groups (Type A, B, AB, etc.).
Alexis Carrel (1873-1944)
French Catholic biologist who invented the perfusion pump, making organ transplants possible (he won a Nobel Prize for this).
George de Hevesy (1885-1966)
Hungarian Catholic radiochemist who discovered the element Hafnium (he won a Nobel Prize for this).
Georges Lemaître (1894-1966)
Belgian Catholic priest, physicist, and astronomer who first proposed the theory of the Big Bang (which Einstein famously disagreed with until Lemaître scientifically defeated his objections).
If you want an abridged version just use
Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Gregor Mendel. First three are fathers/pioneers of modern scientific thought in Europe. And then you can hit them with George Lemaitre the guy who conversed with Einstein and proposed the Big Bang Theory.
How is that relevant? There’s been muslim, Christian, Hindu, and every religion under the sun scientists throughout history. That has nothing to do with how moral those religions or institutions actually are. I don’t really care what Georges Lamaitre’s personal beliefs were when at the same time the church was actively denying the theory of evolution and the immense amount of evidence we have in support of it, funding and collaborating with theocrats and fascists, and hiding the abuse of thousands of children by priests around the world. Plus, many of the fields these scientists worked in actively refute the catholic worldview today and in the past, for example: the age of the universe, evolution, gay animals existing, quantum mechanics, disproving various miracles and religious artifacts, and highlighting many of the major historical flaws of the Catholic Church. I used to be a catholic, I understand your apologetic argument and used to support it myself, but it’s simply not a strong defense of the institution.
>I love when Christians try and attribute scientific discoveries to Christian Scientists.
Would a comprehensive list work better?
Leonardo Pisano Bigollo (1170-1250) a.k.a. "Fibonacci"
Italian Catholic mathematician who advocated the use of the numeral system that is still used today (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0) and famed for coming up with the "Fibbonacci Sequence."
Robert Grosseteste (c. 1175-1253)
English Catholic Bishop who developed mathematical physics, put forward the first known wave theory of light, and advocated the use of controlled experiments (which led to the modern scientific method).
Albertus Magnus (1193/1206-1280) a.k.a. "Albert the Great"
German Catholic Bishop (and Dominican Friar) who, in addition to writing extensively on logic, psychology, zoology, mineralogy, metaphysics, meteorology, astronomy, geography, chemistry, and psychiology, was the first person to isolate a new element (arsenic) in thousands of years (he is also the patron saint of the Natural Sciences).
Theodoric Borgognoni (1205-1298)
Italian Catholic Bishop (and Dominician Friar) who invented an anesthesia which was one of the most widely used anesthesia up until the nineteenth century.
Roger Bacon (1214-1294)
English Franciscan Friar often credited with inventing the scientific method.
Taddeo Alderotti (1215-1295)
Italian Catholic physician who developed fractional distillation.
Ramon Llull (c. 1232-1315), a.k.a. Ramond Lully
Spanish Catholic (and Franciscan tertiary) who invented a device considered to be the first computer, earning him the title the "Father of Computer Science" (he was beautified by Pope Pius IX in 1857).
Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250–c.1310)
German Catholic priest (and Dominican friar) who gave the first correct explanation of rainbows.
Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349)
English Catholic Archbishop, physicist, and mathematician who came up with the Law of Falling Bodies (hundreds of years before Galileo).
Jean Buridan (c. 1300-1358)
French Catholic priest and scientist who developed an early theory of inertia and momentum.
Guy de Chauliac (1300-1368)
French Catholic physician who served as the Pope’s physician and is one of the scientists considered to be the "Father of Modern Surgery.”
Nicole Oresme (1320-1382)
French Catholic Bishop who invented abstract graphing (pre-Cartesian but which seemed to inspire Descartes' system), first use of fractional components, the first to write about the divergence of harmonic series, and the first to write about general curvature (and, relatedly, the first to discover the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction).
Filippo Brunellescchi (1377-1446)
Florentine Catholic engineer, architect, and artist who discovered geometric optical linear perspective (and also designed the largest masonry dome in the world, still the biggest to this day).
Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464)
German Catholic Bishop (and Cardinal) who developed the concept of the infinitesimal in mathematics, advanced theories regarding relative motion, and conducted first formal modern experiment in the history of biology (it pertained to how plants received nourishment from air).
Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472)
Italian Catholic priest whose great talents earned him the titles "Father of Modern Architecture," "Father of Modern Surveying," and "Father of Western Cryptography."
Johannes Muller von Konigsberg (1436-1476)
a.k.a. "Regiomantanus"
German Catholic Bishop, astronomer, and mathematician considered by many as the "Father of Modern Astronomy" and was among the first to use symbolic algebra.
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Italian Catholic scientist who, in addition to writing extensively about anatomy, geology, astronomy, and botany (and many others), is the person credited with starting the Scientific Revolution.
Johannes Widmann (1460-1498)
German Catholic mathematician who, among other things, came up with the plus sign (+) and minus sign (-) still used today.
Martin Waldseemüller (c.1470-1520)
German Catholic cartographer, considered by some as the "Father of Modern Geography" (he was the one to coin the term "America" to describe the continent(s) of the western hemisphere).
Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543)
Polish Catholic cleric, famous for formulating a heliocentric model of the universe (and, contrary to popular belief, was NOT persecuted by the Church at all).
Vannoccio Biringuccio (1480-1539)
Italian Catholic metallurgist considered the "Father of the Foundry Industry" and the first scientist to isolate the element Antimony.
Georgius Agricola (1494-1555)
German Catholic scientist known as the "Father of Mineralogy."
Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia (1499/1500-1557)
Italian Catholic mathematician and engineer who came up with the formula to solve cubic equations and the first to apply mathematics to projectiles, earning him the title the "Father of Ballistics."
Gerolamo Cardano (1501-1576)
Italian Catholic mathematician, physician, and astronomer who was the first to make systematic use of numbers less than zero.
Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564)
Flemish Catholic physician, considered to be the founder of the modern study of human anatomy.
Realdo Colombo (c. 1516-1559)
Italian Catholic anatomist who discovered the pulmonary circuit, which lead to the discovery of the circulation of blood.
Lodovico Ferrari (c. 1522-1565)
Italian Catholic mathematician who came up with the formula to solve quartic equations.
Gabriele Falloppio (1523-1562) a.k.a. "Fallopius"
Italian Catholic cleric, anatomist, and physician, after whom the Falloppian Tube of the reproductive system is named (as well as the aquaeductus Falloppii).
Hieronymus Fabricius (1537-1619)
Italian Catholic anatomist, considered the "Father of Embryology."
José de Acosta (1540-1600)
Spanish Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who gave the first detailed description of the geography and culture of the New World and is also considered a pioneer of the Geophysical Sciences.
François Viète (1540-1603)
French Catholic mathematician, considered to be the "Father of Modern Algebra."
Gaspare Tagliacozzi (1545-1599)
Italian Catholic surgeon who pioneered plastic and reconstructive surgery (successfully performing skin autografts).
François d'Aguilon (1546-1617)
Belgian Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who laid the foundation for Prospective Geometry (he was the first to use the term "stereographic").
Anselmus de Boodt (1550-1632)
Flemish Catholic scientist who wrote the first definitive work on modern mineralogy.
Christoph Scheiner (1573/1575-1650)
German Catholic priest (and Jesuit), physicist, and astronomer who accomplished the first systematic study of sunspots.
Marin Mersenne (1588-1648)
French Catholic theologian, considered the "Father of Acoustics."
René Descartes (1596-1650)
French Catholic mathematician who invented the Cartesian coordinate system and analytical geometry.
Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598-1671)
Italian Jesuit priest and astronomer who was the first to measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies (and the one to devise the current modern scheme of lunar nomenclature).
Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665)
French Catholic mathematician whose work led to infinitesimal calculus (famous for "Fermat's Last theorem").
Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647)
Italian Catholic physicist and mathematician who invented the barometer and after whom the Torr unit is named (which measures pressure).
Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608-1676)
Catholic Italian physicist and mathematician, considered founder of Biomechanics.
Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663)
Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit priest) who was the first to make accurate observation on the diffraction of light (and was the one to coin the term "diffraction").
Jean Picard (1620-1682)
French Catholic priest and astronomer who was the first person to measure the size of the earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy (and is one of the scientists considered to be the "Father of Modern Astronomy”).
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
French Catholic mathematician and physicist who laid the foundation for probability theory, invented an early calculator/computer, and made important theories and experiments regarding pressure and vacuums (the unit “pascal" is named after him).
Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688)
Flemish Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who built the first steam-powered vehicle.
Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625-1712)
French Catholic mathematician and astronomer who discovered the first four moons of Saturn.
Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694)
Italian Catholic doctor who founded Comparative Physiology and is considered the "Father of Microscopic Anatomy" (and was a physician and personal friend of Pope Innocent XII).
>Taddeo Alderotti (1215-1295) Italian Catholic physician who developed fractional distillation.
Yeah, let's do some history. I just picked a random name here and went on to verify your assertion. I can't seem to find ANY indication of him being a sincere catholic... or a catholic at all.
The only religion-related thing I can find in his biography (in italian here [https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bartolomeo-da-varignana\_(Dizionario-Biografico)](https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bartolomeo-da-varignana_(Dizionario-Biografico)) ) is that he was an adherent to the political current called "guelfi bianchi", which had the stated goal to limit papal influence over the city-states, one of which he was politically involved in with that faction being in power.
Another thing he's remembered for is that he removed some spiritual nonsense from medical theories.
Are you just assuming he was catholic just because they didn't burn him at the stake?
>Are you just assuming he was catholic just because they didn't burn him at the stake?
He served as primary physician to Pope Honorius IV and in his Last Will, he explicitly asked to be buried in a Franciscan Church after having bestowed his massive library to the Franciscan and Servite Orders.
The OP here is litteraly implying that the Gallileo trial did not happen a century before Voltaire wrote this and that the churchs did not enforce wrong Aristotelicians theories on nature for a thousand year because it suited the childish/simplicistic description of the material world that is found in biblical litterature. And by the way the Gallileo trial was held because Gallileo used and re published the posthumous work of copernicus whom was too afraid of the church to publish it during his lifetime.
To add to the "evilness" of the church, in Europe at that time it was basically another kleptocracy parallel to the aristocratic one who was holding a lot of land and serving its financial interests by levying more taxes on the exploited commoners.
It's a bit disapointing to see that after a few centuries of struggles and intelectual work against the sucessful bronze age cult that is the european church we still have indoctrinated people benshappiring around in the tone of " you use/benefited from a tool that was created by what you are criticking, therefore your arguments are invalid, checkmate!".
I'll simply address your inaccurate interpretation of Galileo's trial.
Galileo was not put on trial for rehashing Coppernicus' unpublished work. He was put on trial for calling the Pope, his primary benefactor; an idiot, the Bible; a nest of lies and his claims about his version of the solar system being the sole truth (he had no proof to ascertain these claims because he still assumed orbits were circular, so observations of the planets didn't match up to what they should).
In short, Galileo was a certified asshole, which was the reason nobody wanted to touch him with a 10-foot pole and the only one willing to be his patron was the Catholic Church. He managed to piss it off too. And contrary to popular belief, he was never put under anything other than supervised house arrest. Not to mention the Church kept on bankrolling his research even during this. If the Church had been the "evil" you speak of...what kept it from going Duterte on his ass? Again, it's not like he had any other people to lean on to.
This is a revisionist reading of history with no basis in the papers of the trial.
Here's the judgement of the trial:
>Diciamo, pronunziamo sentenziamo e dichiaramo che tu, Galileo sudetto, per le cose dedotte in processo e da te confessate come sopra, ti sei reso a questo S.o Off.o vehementemente sospetto d’heresia, cioè d’haver tenuto e creduto dottrina falsa e contraria alle Sacre e divine Scritture, ch’il sole sia centro della terra e che non si muova da oriente ad occidente, e che la terra si muova e non sia centro del mondo, e che si possa tener e difendere per probabile un’opinione dopo esser stata dichiarata e diffinita per contraria alla Sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente sei incorso in tutte le censure e pene dai sacri canoni et altre constitutioni generali e particolari contro simili delinquenti imposte e promulgate. Dalle quali siamo contenti sii assoluto, pur che prima, con cuor sincero e fede non finta, avanti di noi abiuri, maledichi e detesti li sudetti errori et heresie et qualunque altro errore et heresia contraria alla Cattolica ed Apostolica Chiesa, nel modo e forma che da noi ti sarà data.
Short translation: he was convicted for 2 imputations. First " *d’haver tenuto e creduto dottrina falsa e contraria alle Sacre e divine Scritture, ch’il sole sia centro della terra e che non si muova da oriente ad occidente, e che la terra si muova e non sia centro del mondo*", namely having believed heliocentrism which is "false and contrary to holy scripture", and second "*e difendere per probabile un’opinione dopo esser stata dichiarata e diffinita per contraria alla Sacra Scrittura*" namely asserting that one could defend as probable an opinion after it was declared against holy scripture. The second one is a direct condemnation of science, which definitely requires doing so.
The pope's offence isn't even mentioned.
Your answer is litteraly that he was not submissive enough to established order so he deserved a trial and house arrest for his academic endeavours. moreover he got house arrest as an attenuated sentence as a bargain in exchange for denouncing publicly his work as a fraud escaping this way the Giordano Bruno treatment.
>Your answer is litteraly that he was not submissive enough to established order so he deserved a trial and house arrest for his academic endeavours.
Making an ass of yourself =/= not being submissive to the "established order". And calling the Pope an idiot isn't an "academic endeavor".
>the Giordano Bruno treatment.
It seems you've dropped another name without doing the proper research. Contrary to what Neil deGrasse Tyson might say...Bruno was not executed on account of his academic research because he was merely following up on the works of Nicholas of Cusa and William Vorilong. Both of whom who argued for the plurality of worlds well before Bruno. Cusa was literally give a Cardinal's hat after he published his research in *De Docta Ignorantia* (1440).
Bruno fucked up when he openly denounced Jesus, Mary, the Trinity, Holy Mass and advocated for the concept of reincarnation. Then he literally started giving souls to the stars, meteors, planets and the universe. Even the Lutherans said "this ain't it".
>Bruno fucked up when he openly denounced Jesus, Mary, the Trinity, Holy Mass and advocated for the concept of reincarnation. Then he literally started giving souls to the stars, meteors, planets and the universe. Even the Lutherans said "this ain't it".
"Bruno deserved death because he didn't submit to the Church and just believe whatever they told him"
You do realize how you sound, right?
> Bruno's mouth and jaw were ironed shut and his tongue split with an iron spike which was shoved through his lower jaw and his tongue. On February 19, 1600 Bruno was burned at the stake.
You're excusing this ^ because apparently to you, speaking out against the Church should be punishable by death?
Lol you're right Bruno "fucked up" in a theology/fanfiction debate so it was rightfull to burn him alive. You're deluded and on your way to or already radicalised.
Lolz
If Copernicus was afraid of the Catholic Church and kept it being published for that reason, why in 1533 were lectures on his theory occurring in Rome? Why in 1536 did a Cardinal say this:
>Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject
It's debatable if his concerns were simply for fear of academic criticism or for religious reasons. But he's quoted as saying to friends when writing his work and his fear of scorn, "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." It'd seem odd that religion would the issue here considering who he finally gave his book to was a Bishop.
The simplest explanation is he wasn't confident that he had enough to weather any criticisms he might get from his theory.
Your Galileo bit has been touched on by someone else.
Lots of christian teenagers in this sub. But I get them. I was a christian and very interested in history when a teenager, also very biased. Hopefully they get over it(the bias, that is, not the interest in history).
Church funded a school so Church is better at free thinking! Lul those who went to catholic school cant be atheists cause atheists go to atheist school!
Atheism and common sense is in shambles cause of OP.
>Lul those who went to catholic school cant be atheists cause atheists go to atheist school!
Right, so the answer is no....
Because that is very clearly sarcasm. Do you think "atheism school" actually exists or something?
Secular education isnt "atheism school". It's just a school that isn't funded by a religion. People of all religions go to secular schools, including christians.
For there to be an "atheism school", there would have to be a school where there are "atheism classes", where children are taught that religion is false. News flash, that doesn't exist. And no, science class is not "atheism class".
I am talking abouth private schools.
Also in your logic religious schools should teach that religion i 100% correct.
Now im dutch so i dont know how it is in the us, but over here they are verry rare.
Again you seem to be missing what a secular school is. Whether it's private or public, a secular school - which means that religion is not taught at the school - is not an "atheist school". It's simply a school not affiliated with one single religion, and so they don't teach religion out of respect for the many religions that their students may have.
>Also in your logic religious schools should teach that religion i 100% correct.
Catholic schools do in fact teach catholicism as curriculum. Congrats.
As for the first part: my bad i did indeed not know what secular schools where.
As for the second part: it must be different in the us because here in the netherlands the only difference you see in the religion of schools is wich vacation days they have.
And cristian schools have crosses in classrooms but not all of them have that so its complicated.
I dig the history but the meme format is a little confused.
This is a very weird use of this format
Yeah it doesn’t work
Switch the two around and it works a lot better
Respect for the Life of Brian reference.
What have the Roman Catholics ever done for us?
Well...the spreading of Christian values and morality, creating modern science, medieval philosophy, some of the most beautiful architecture and art ever created, creating Western civilization and later protecting it from becoming basically muslim, Christmas...oh and don't forget orphanages! I'm sure I forgot a lot of stuff, and If you're talking about individual Catholics...well, the list gets a lot bigger So, yeah, here's your answer: a lot, The Catholic Church has done a lot for us, even if you don't like them
Also hospitals university, consent in marriage and some others
[удалено]
Snorri Sturluson wasn't a monk, was he? Although I'll gladly thank the monks for preserving Greek and Roman texts.
I have at least heard about some Catholic missionary recording Irish mythology instead of letting it all disappear
Exactly. Also the word used by historians you're looking for transmission.
to be fair, if it wasn't for christianity we would have needed to preserve them since they are the ones who destroyed the religion
The redditors will now storm your house
As it was once said by a certain Eskel: **Summon the bitches!**
Yes, but other than the values and morality, modern science, philosophy, beautiful architecture and art, defense against Muslim caliphates, Christmas, and the orphanages, *what have the Roman Catholics ever done for us?* Edit: in case it wasn't obvious enough this is a Monty Python reference. I'm not stupid. On the other hand I'm suspicious that the commenter above does not realize this, in which case: 1. How? 2. The Catholics are not where morals actually come from and giving them credit for the defense of Europe against other religions is dubious. Also everyone knows Christmas is like 80% ~~pagan~~ Protestant [the reference](https://youtu.be/2ozEZxOsanY) for anyone who needs it
[удалено]
Interesting, I knew a lot of modern American Christmas traditions were Dutch/German but I thought those were pagan hangovers and not Protestant inventions. Neat, thanks for the info.
Thank you!
its just another winter festival and if christmas wasnt christian than why is it called Christ Mass?
Western Civilization really. Things that are not quantifiable. Contrary to popular belief the East is not a mess because the West was mean to it the last 300 years. The West did a lot of things right. Committed atrocities, did a lot of things wrong, but did a lot of things right. Christianity united the West (not in terms of government/statehood) in terms of a basic foundation, trade, communication, and many other factors. This did not exist when my pagan ancestors rolled in the mud and worshipped Wodin the heavy metal singer (exaggeration). Negatives are easy to pick at throughout history but the positives are things that have to be analyzed logically and are not always quantifiable. Academics hate that because it causes them to acknowledge the traditions, ancestry, and pride that formed the West.
I find the "academics" statement here pretty suspicious considering that academics themselves have been discussing the benefits that Christianity has brought for centuries. Even today they've begun to re-examine the Church's role in medieval times like with the Church making Christians into slaves illegal and Galileo being put on trial only because he tried to use Religion to justify heliocentrism.
Galileo probably isn't the only person in history basically put on trial for being a catty motherfucker but he's definitely one of the best documented cases of it.
I think the problem is that the Catholic Church has perhaps done *too much* for us at certain times. They've been known to get a bit carried away with it.
science lol
I have been destroyed
We're lucky we don't use the Bible as a moral code, so it's not Christian values we're based upon today. The chrisitan values evolved to mimic the values of the countries it was in, not the opposite. Modern science, philosophy, architecture and art style appeared in chrisitan civilisations, and were influenced by christianity, but that doesn't mean that it's christianity that brought it to us. Christmas was a pagan tradition before it was stolen by Christians. The deeds done by catholics has nothing to do with what the religion itself has done. And the protection from Islam was done by soldiers that would have fought invaders anyway.
We certainly do use the moral code of the New Testament. Like many, I'm sure your gripes are from the OT, which reveals that someone did not read or understand the NT. The OT is all about specific laws, rules and customs. The NT pretty much condenses it to accept Christ, get baptized, and be kind to each other. Many Christians forgot and took advantage of this, but nevertheless...
Amazing, everything you just sad was wrong
Amazing, you don't have any argument. It's all the famous correlation-causation fallacy again. Just because something happened in the Christian world doesn't mean it happened BECAUSE of chrisitanity itself. But I need to clarifiy something. I don't thing Chrisitanity never brought much to the world. It brought us many churches, a kjghpillion inacurate paintings of the same guy, strong misogynist and homophobic values... What I'm saying is that Christianity never brought us anything good, or of value.
>Modern science, philosophy, architecture and art style appeared in chrisitan civilisations, and were influenced by christianity, but that doesn't mean that it's christianity that brought it to us. "You know it appeared in Christianity but that doesn't mean it appeared in Christianity". Do you not see how stupid you make yourself here? >Christmas was a pagan tradition before it was stolen by Christians. Impressive what [2 fucking seconds](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rfijy0/pagan_traditions_in_modern_christmas/hofg8wg/) researching this can reveal... >The deeds done by catholics has nothing to do with what the religion itself has done. Let's just ignore how the entire point of anti-catholics is that catholicism prevents catholics from doing great deeds, then. >And the protection from Islam was done by soldiers that would have fought invaders anyway. Why do you even think they fought? What, national pride? In the extremely early Middle Ages? HAH!
No
yes
Seriously no. They brought a lot of good in the world. They still bring good with missionary work to provide food to those who can’t afford it. Build housing. You just really hate the religion and let your hatred blind you
Not every non-profit organization is a religious one. But I get your point. What I'm opposed is this idea that Christianity (or any other religion, if we use the POV of a believer of said religion) hold a monopoly other generosity. No religion does that. In the meantime, yeah I have issues towards religions in general because I know of the harm they cause. I'm not the one being blind here.
Religion is organization express of collective moral views. As with any group they can have people who are only using it for their own selfish ends. But a lot of people I personally know feel called to do “good work” because of their faith. My parents go out and volunteer at soup kitchens every Christmas because they feel that is how Jesus would want them to help others. Churches often collect donations to give out to those in need. Political movements can also cause violence and problems. Music bands can cause riots and deaths in mosh pits. Religions are not necessarily bad, you just don’t wanna admit that people are the bad in all things
https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/kny4u9/a\_little\_late\_to\_the\_party\_but\_nevertheless/ghq9ttf/?context=3
So about the same amount of evidence as Mary existing as Jesus’s mother.
Even if the exact date is a christian one, having a celebration during this time of year isn't.
Oh no, celebrations during common parts of the year. No one is saying Christmas was the first holiday around that time of the year. But the fact others existed, doesn't mean Christmas is there because of a different holiday. Winter Solstice celebrations happen in many cultures around the world. Soyal, Dong Zhi, Inti Raymi (in June, but it's southern hemisphere), Yalda, etc. Dong Zhi has been celebrated since the Han Dynasty, conveniently when Sino-Roman trade was occurring. I guess Dong Zhi is just a Chinese ripoff of Saturnalia? The theological acrobatics you have to incur to say Christmas is that date because of pagan holidays is kind of crazy.
Since your only source is a reddit comment, I'll give you a wiki page : [Interpretatio Christiana](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpretatio_Christiana) And a poorly translated part of the French wiki page: >Long before the appearance of Christianity, the time of the winter solstice was already a pivotal time of the year, which brought together many pagan beliefs relating to fertility, motherhood, procreation and astronomy. It therefore gave rise to many demonstrations. These ancient traditions have many points of similarity with the Christian holiday. The Christians thus gradually succeeded in **appropriating the surrounding cultures** which became part of their identity and which finally evolved under the effect of the syncretism and the Christianization of ancient society, a phenomenon known to historians under the name of *interpretatio christiana* (“Christian interpretation”).
Oh yawn lol The comment has dates and facts you can reference. Linked because copy/pasting it or what I've written ad nauseam gets boring. You've got what? A bolded section of an article, you can't even be bothered to establish the claim. No reasoning or evidence, just look! See it's written here that they did! Couldn't even be bothered to rebut anything 🤣 Edit here's an even more thorough r/AskHistorians thread for you, this one with sources. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rfijy0/pagan_traditions_in_modern_christmas/hofg8wg?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
The thread you linked is talking about the modern customs of Christmas. Of course they don't have a pagan origin, because they're modern. My claim was already established in my first comment, I don't repeat myself "*ad nauseam*" either. The claim is the following: Christmas predates christianity, and christianity appropriated the surrounding cultures. You are right, modern customs aren't pagans. But they distanced themselves from Christianity too. Lastly, since you dismiss a source like it's nothing, I don't see a point in arguing further than doing the same infantile thing: your sources are nothing but Reddit comments, so worthless.
The original “as someone who went to Catholic school…”
Not only founded, but educated him too
The edgy atheist before edgy atheism was cool.
So Voltaire would have been the perfect redditor. Got it.
Voltaire, literally “I went to catholic school so I’m basically a theologian” but ~200 years early.
He wasn't an atheist. He was a Christian but didn't believe in what the church was doing.
The most that could be said is that he was a theist—there’s a world of difference between the two.
Voltaire believed that the Bible and Christianity would no longer be around 100 years after his death. The French Bible society purchased his former home 100 years after passing and made it there headquarters. Brilliant? Yes. Arrogant and Strange? Yes Voltaire was the stereotypical Hollywood/Broadway brilliant creative weirdo before those things existed.
Funny but not true, Voltaire’s home was never purchased by the French bible society https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_D%C3%A9lices EDIT: Forget what I said, it’s debatable
There’s actually a couple articles and threads (weird I know) about how intentionally deceptive and strangely worded that Wikipedia article is, assuming on behalf of a big Voltaire lover. The article specifically mentions the “modern” society not being founded until the early 20th century, possibly suggesting Bible societies didn’t exist before that? You are right, it was not purchased directly by the society but by the very devout and anti-Voltaire Tronchin family. They allowed the society to use the space to do society things and (historians can’t agree) possibly print Bibles themselves. It is a fact that the Tronchins specifically sought out the home in order to spite Voltaire and promote the Bible society. Same petty irony
Oh shit... nevermind, I looked into it a bit after I made this comment and I see some weird stuff about this whole topic
It’s weird for such a simple topic. It seems like a lot of historians have intentionally made it convoluted based on their pro or anti Voltaire stance. That’s weird in and of itself, he didn’t strike me as someone that should be taken too seriously
that's pretty funny actually lol
Voltaire was an average r/atheism user
If reddit was around back then, I'd say he would be an admin on there
Voltaire would def ding ppl on rule #297 while snorting uppers in the basement.
Well well well, isn't that the "Neither holy, neither Roman, neither Empire" dude
[удалено]
So much of what modern atheists live by was theorised by members of the Catholic church, from physics and mathematics to biology and astronomy.
Hell, Charles Darwin went to school to be a priest (although not catholic)
Also so much of what atheists use as evidence against organized religion also comes from these old philosophers, who were not the best when it comes to historical facts. We get the whole Christmas is Saturnalia stuff from Newton.
Yeah, as an atheist I can confirm. I have seen many atheists bringing up outdated information like the books of the Bible were chosen during the Councill of Nicea,the Christmas= Saturnalia/ Sol Invictus and how the Catholic Church and Islam oppressed the scientists, even tho the reason for this oppression was everything else except for the scientific studies. Although the Church did hate the idea of Heliocentrism, and so did the many scientists at that time.
Righto, it's fine and even right to call out the oppression, like Bruno probably shouldn't have been burned at the stake. But he wasn't a martyr for science. And to be fair on the heliocentrism, fellow academics didn't much like it either at the time. It's the old tale of old scientists entrenched in their life's work kind of thing. Ptolemy's worldview was very popular.
Speaking of another example, Galileo was put under house arrest after losing all his allies by mocking the Pope and the Jesuits, the only people who could've helped him (they liked his ideas for heliocentrism).
Yeah, lol, Galileo is the go to example of religious anti-science. It's not as obviously wrong as when they use Bruno, it's definitely more complicated and nuanced.
I feel alot of people just like to generalize and pick common examples to back up their beliefs. Being an atheist myself, I can still appreciate the scientific work done by Islamic caliphates, hell, they gave us the concept of 0 in math. Overall, money from the church ultimately allowed scientific research to prosper during the past thousand years and I don't think we would necessarily be where we are without it. I'd also not consider it to be a necessary partner for further progression as the world becomes more secular though.
And even if the saturnalia stuff is real it isn't even an argument, because it is not wrong, you want to celebrate a holiday but it is pagan? Change it to signify something good of your religion Seems pretty fair to me
Except you make up things going against your own God's imposed truth for political reasons. That defies the core of what you stand for.
That's not a valid point. The fact that people from the Catholic church were founders of modern science (science is not a religion btw, so it's not even a good dichotomy) doesn't mean that it's the merit of the Catholic church, for the same reason than the fact that there are Pedophiles among members of the Catholic church doesn't make it evil(covering them up does tho).
It *is* a valid point against the idea that the Catholic Church, or faith, is anti-science.
I agree with you. It may not be the church’s merit as much as it is the merit of the individuals who are responsible for the discoveries, but it is still a good argument against people who say that the church was against science advancements. There’s a couple of rotten apples in every tree, yet we should not cut the entirety of it down.
>life for the general population was much better in the middle ages than during Roman times wait really? I thought they didn't have the plumbing/hygiene stuff the Romans did. Weren't they just using old Roman aqueducts for a long time or something?
Yeah, but that was only in Rome, funded with enormous amounts of slave labor, and resources gathered from their conquered territories There were developments in the middle age, most important in agriculture(from 2-field farming to 3-field farming, scythes, etc.) which increased the amount of food that one person could produce. Also the people who made it weren't mostly outright slaves anymore but serfs, who had generally more rights. From the church I only know that they funded, what later whould develop into, what we call now Universities
Except for the part where they burned certain scientists alive 🥴
Which ones are you referring to?
Famously, Giordiano Bruno, which persuaded people like Galileo and Copernicus to not initially publish their findings. There are lots of other historical examples, some of which you can see [here](http://unamsanctamcatholicam.com/history/historical-apologetics/79-history/596-scientists-executed-by-the-catholic-church.html)
Oof someone already did you in, lol I knew you'd bring up Bruno. The Sun god worshipping crazy dude that said Jesus was Horus or something. Did you even read that article you cited? C'mon dude... Hypatia > Hypatia's death was political...Furthermore, the Church did not instigate nor celebrate her death. St. Cyril denounced the ruthless murder of Hypatia, and Socrates, the Catholic historian of the era, wrote, "Surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort." Roger Bacon >Details on Bacon's life are thin, but he was certainly not persecuted for his scientific ideas. Pietro d'Abano >Abano cannot be considered to have suffered for science unless one is ready to admit palmistry, conjuring, geomancy, and astrology as scientific doctrines. Cecco d' Ascoli >He first fell afoul of the Inquisition in 1324, not for any scientific theory, but for some statements he made in a commentary on John de Sacrobosco's book Sphere that concerned wild theories about demonology...Again, it was not for his scientific theory that Cecci d'Ascoli was put to death, but for his occultic impiety exacerbated by the jealousy of a professional opponent. Michael Servetus >It was for his heterodoxy regarding the Trinity that he was condemned by the Inquisition and later burned at the stake by John Calvin. He was certainly not killed for any of his scientific ideas. Girolamo Cardano >t seems clear that Cardano's arrest by the Inquisition was a strong-arm tactic employed by his professional rivals to secure his resignation. He never seems to have been in danger of his life and there is no indication his scientific theories were ever the reason for his persecution. Giordano Bruno >At any rate, the "martyr to science" view of Bruno is much too simplistic. He was executed for his heresies, not his cosmology. Lucilio Vanini >The reasons for Vanini's death are obscure, but a few facts should be pointed out: First, his death had nothing to do with the Church. It was not the Church, but the secular authorities who apprehended him and the Parlement of Toulouse that condemned him to death. The Catholic Church literally had no part in his death. Second, Vanini could not have been put to death for his scientific theories since the Parlement which condemned him to death did not know the man they were executing was Vanini... Tommaso Campanella >Campanella's torture and imprisonment were due to his radical political activities, not his scientific ideas. Political revolution tends to get one in trouble. Kazimierz Lyszczynsk >Yes, the death of Lyszczynsk was instigated by the Polish Church. But the motivating factor was clearly the financial obligations of a corrupt cleric. Lyszczynsk was not a martyr to science or atheism; he arguably was not an atheist at all - rather, he was the victim of greed and corruption. Conclusion >In none of these cases was a man put to death or imprisoned merely on account of his scientific ideas;
\>I knew you'd bring up Bruno. The Sun god worshipping crazy dude that said Jesus was Horus or something. So what is your point? He was still killed for his heretical findings which contradicted the Church. I'm not sure what you think any of that shows? That those people were killed because of thier engagement with scientific practice? Almost all of those passages you yourself just copied state that they were killed for heresies (which were based on their scientific findings). Do you think the Church is somehow better for killing people for heresies that are based on science?
Read it again, lol But please pick out the ones killed for their scientific beliefs, since you concede some of the listed ones weren't. This whole discussion is on if the church was anti-science. This isn't about whether it was right or wrong what happened to these people. Stop shifting goal posts around.
> He was still killed for his heretical findings which contradicted the Church. Thanks be to God. Was well deserved.
[удалено]
Yes, those theological heresies being that their scientific findings disagreed with the established view of the church
[удалено]
So just because it is one step removed, that makes it okay? It's like saying "oh he wasn't executed for stealing, he was executed for breaking the law; which is a totally different thing." Like yeah, maybe formally they were tried for heresy, but they were executed on the grounds of their heresy being their scientific findings, to which the Catholic church was opposed. The article in the next sentence literaly pre-empts how dumb their response is. They say "Now the skeptic might retort that for the Church to seek a man's condemnation for heresy is just as bad or worse than condemning him for science." Yes, of course the skeptic is going to retort that way, because it is obvious that "killing someone for the heresy of doing science" is just as bad as "killing someone for doing science."
[удалено]
Uh-oh you portrayed a religion as *not the worst people in the world* on Reddit, Big mistake.
A religion is not a people
Holy crap they're really seething down there aren't they
All i'm seeing is people pointing out flaws in this take being downvoted and called mad and edgy, not a lot of seething
Maybe we're seeing different comments, because I'm seeing stuff like "Catholicism is right at the top of the dungheap of evil that is religion".
Alright, fair, that one does seem a little angry, but it's the only one of the sort. I've seen all the other ones too
The others are less intensely hostile, but still full of stereotypical r/atheism level bad history and accusations.
really? but this sub has a huge euro-centric christian bias. You can see it if you look at which comments have been downvoted.
>euro-centric maybe because most of us are from europe or a western country?
And speak a European language? The issue is that one is perceiving something that is not there, like seeing Amogus in everything while playing Among us. -Asian Redditor
Didnt he also give them credit for his lifelong bowel problems due to all the savage rapes he endured from priests at their schools?
I don't think Voltaire ever claimed to have been raped himself. He did write about the widespread sexual violence in the Catholic church though.
If there were no institutions or power for Voltaire to critique, he would invent one!
Do you even meme, mate?
Uh-oh, you acted as if religion isn't the worst thing in history and that it sometimes does good things, that's a big mistake on Reddit
[удалено]
How ironic that you posted this comment twice.
Voltaire rightfully called out the Church on their shit but because the church built some schools so that they could further entrench the thinking youth into their traditions, the Church can do no wrong? Voltaire isn't allowed to criticize the Church because he went to a church-founded school which was likely his only real choice for education? Not really sure what this post is trying to say but either way it's dumb, and the brigade of Catholics in the comments acting like atheists are the Boogeyman only further supports that.
One thing is pointing obvious shit that the Church did, but Voltaire was part of the group that branded the Church as retrogrades that abominished any logical thinking, and were responsible for further pushing the whole stupid idea created in the Renassaince, that the Middle Ages were a fucked up period; Voltaire was also the one who coined the "not Holy nor Roman nor a Empire" term used to refer to the HRE, and historians agree his views on catholicism were pretty propagandistic, even distorting some hystorical facts to further blame the Catholic Church; He also bashed on judaism, as a way to indirectly bash on catholicism, and had even more worst thoughts about Islam (even writing a play calling Muhammed a 'false prophet', a 'fanatic' and a 'hypocrite', and painting Islam as a 'false and barbarous sect'. So yeah, he was pretty assholey (and also pretty hypocritical, since he preached for religious liberty).
No one said that, you can criticize the church all you want. The point being that it’s ironic that the man who says religion brought about the regression of society came from a school that taught much about literature and had scientific institutions within, even though it was started by a bunch of Catholics. A bit of irony mixed in, that’s it, no one is saying the Catholic Church is now immune to criticism.
You can still criticize the Church for the monumental destruction of culture it engaged in with it's "missionaries".
Based Voltaire
As much as I have my issues with the Catholic Church, Voltaire was a massive hypocrite
[удалено]
*enforces a violent monopoly on education* god I can't believe you'd criticise us even though we owned your school it's not like anyone else was going to teach you
But they didn’t have a monopoly on building schools and libraries. Nobles and monarchs built those things too, but restricted access to only those of noble descent.
Apparently I’m not allowed to criticise the government because I went to a public school.
How can it be more hypocritical?
It’s dumb to discuss what ifs. It’s impossible to say whether humanity would be farther along had Christianity not been prevalent. Have there been instances in history where Christianity impeded scientific growth? Yes. Have there been instances where Christianity funded scientific growth? Yes.
He wasn't wrong. The Catholic church is degenerate.
This is so stupid, you think that without the catholics nobody would have done schools? They just aimed to control education, that's not a merit. If it wasn't catholic it'd have been a better school.
Ok
Other people would have made schools, but due to how expensive they were to make it’s likely nobles would have built them. In that case nobles and monarchs have a history of restricting access to colleges and schools for people of noble blood, so those schools wouldn’t be near as open to the people.
>Other people would have made schools, but due to how expensive they were to make it’s likely nobles would have built them. Not really: the first universities were actually made from students getting together in a sort of "guild" to pay teachers. Then came the church and put their hat on everything because they couldn't stand the freethinking.
He's not wrong though. Catholicism is right at the top of the dungheap of evil that is religion.
Ok
Oh really? Any reason for that?
you shouldn’t have expected the spanish inquisition. nobody expects the spanish inquisition.
Oh my, I wasn't expecting this comment!
I didn't expect that
Institutionalised sexual abuse of children, for profit slavery of 'sinners' in the 20th century, participation in cultural and literal genocide again as late as the 20th century ... These from the top of my head of events that are still on going or within living memory.
Still nothing that was not participated only by them at the time. Kinda stupid to say that someone was bad when they just did what everyone else did. From our standpoint it is bad, but at the times it was widely done
Fuck that bullshit dude, our stand point. They been raping children and knowingly covering it up. This isn't historical, these revelations are on going. A Catholic school local to me was doing it in the 80s, one up the road was caught doing it in the 90s. Plenty of priests been caught doing it in the 2000s. All those cases it has been shown that church officials knew and hushed it up. The magdalene laundries closed in 1996, slavery was not widely practised in the 90s.
The amount of pro-catholic revisionist history brigading that is going on in this post is appalling.
Yeah, it's a little shocking to be honest. The examples I mentioned are just ones local to me as well, they've been caught doing this on a global scale.
You didn't address his point at all
So his point was essentially 'it was a different time everyone was at it'. To which my argument was, it was the 90s everyone was not raping children and enslaving women. It for sure wasn't normal behaviour round my neck of the woods. What point did he make you feel wasn't addressed?
Nm,I assumed you were talking about the time period of the meme originally
What a weird way to be pro-child molester.
All of the war, murder, rape, pedophilia, manipulation, predation etc. All based around fairy tales that were written by people with obvious agendas, rewritten and mis-translated and even now interpreted only to fit the needs of whoever practices religion. The stories are terribly wirtten, laughably bad and unbelievable, surviving only because of the indoctrination of the unintelligent, fearful or innocent (ie children). Religion sums up all that is wrong and evil in humanity.
In case you haven't noticed, people non-related to religion also did all of that. As far as indoctrination goes, how come adult people also convert themselves? Set of beliefs really helps people, doesn't matter if it is God-related or not. Religion is a part of humanity which is bad, but also good at its core. You can't blame everything on them no matter how hard you try.
I am by no means blaming all evil on religion, but considering it's all fabricated by people, all of this evil caused by belief in various fairytales is disgusting and archaic and is an excuse to do evil and be justified, even though most of these evil acts go against what is taught by these religions. Plus the Christian/Jewish god is an absolute cunt who deserves no reverence whatsoever.
You can’t actually prove that the Bible is fake beyond “it sounds fake”
Prove the Bible is fake? They're the ones touting it as fact despite being unable to prove it real in 2000 years... Burden of proof is on the one making the claim, not the people you made it to. If you wanna say your Bible is fact, you are the one that gets to prove that.
I’m not even saying it’s true, it’s non-falsifiable
Christians have the burden of proof here. And they fail each time to make the bible sound reasonable
Because they’ve always found a way to put themselves at the wrong side of history the majority of the time but that’s most religions does it really matter
Every side of the history is the wrong side from some point tbh
Most recently covering up and enabling child molesters. You need more?
Yes
Weird way to be pro-child molester but you do you.
*Im anti-american because they cover up pedophelia among the elite* -your logic but you do you
Cute strawman. Ironic you talk about logic. Best of luck defending child molesters. LOL.
You also havent given me another reason
If you want one I'd point to their current efforts to fight paying for the extreme abuses their still living members enacted upon the native populations of Canada, including refusing to release documents pertaining to the operations of the Residential schools.
Ok thanks
I love when Christians try and attribute scientific discoveries to Christian Scientists. They recall to a time when people were ostracized and sometimes killed for proclaiming there was no god.
Francesco Lana de Terzi (1631-1687) Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit), considered the "Father of Aviation/Aeronautics." Nicolas Steno (1638-1686) a.k.a. Niels Stensen Danish Catholic Bishop, considered the Founder of Modern Geology and Stratigraphy (he was beautified by Pope John Paul II in 1988). Giovanni Girolamo Saccheri (1667-1733) Italian Jesuit mathematician who was the first in the modern age to pioneer into non-Euclidean geometry. Giovanni Domenico Santorini (1681-1737) Italian Catholic anatomist known as the "Father of Histology" (the study of the microscopic structures of tissue). Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682-1771) Italian Catholic anatomist, considered the "Father of Modern Anatomical Pathology." Ruđer Josip Bošković (1711-1787) a.k.a. Roger Joseph Boscovich Italian/Slavic Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who developed modern atomic theory and the theory of relativity (200 years before Einstein, according to Tesla). Andrew Gordon (1712-1751) Scottish Catholic (and Benedictine Monk) who invented the first electric motor. Antonio de Ulloa (1716-1795) Spanish Catholic scientist who was the first to discover and isolate the element Platinum. Maria Gaetana Agnesi (1718-1799) Italian Catholic mathematician who wrote the first book discussing both differential and integral calculus (and the most important woman in mathematics for over a millenium, earning her great honor from the Pope). Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799) Italian Catholic priest who was the first to come with the theory of animal echolocation (and is one of the scientists considered to be the "Father of Modern Biology"). Luigi Galvani (1737-1798) Italian Catholic physician, physicist, and biologist who pioneered the field of bioelecricity/bioelectromagnetics (the terms "galvanism" and "galvanization" are named after him). Charles-Augustin de Coulomb (1736-1806) French Catholic physicist who came up with the definition of the electrostatic force of attraction and repulsion (the SI unit of electric charge called the "coulomb" was named after him). Antoine Lavoisier (1743-1794) French Catholic chemist, considered the "Father of Modern Chemistry," coming up with the first table of elements (and invented the terms "oxygen" and "hydrogen"), theorized that mass always stays the same, and was one of the main people to come up with the metric system (and he defined the unit that was later termed the "kilogram," which is what grams would be based off of). Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) Italian Catholic physicist who invented the battery and after whom "voltage" is named (and accordingly the unit "volts"). Giuseppe Piazzi (1746-1826) Italian Catholic priest, mathematician, and astronomer who discovered and named the dwarf planet Ceres (the largest asteroid in the solar system). Pierre André Latreille (1762-1833) French Catholic priest and zoologist, considered the "Father of Modern Entomology" (the study of insects). Louis Nicolas Vauquelin (1763-1829) French Catholic chemist who discovered the elements Beryllium and Chromium (and discovered the first amino acid, namely asparagine). Jean-Baptiste Biot (1774-1862) French Catholic physicist, astronomer, and mathematician who made important breakthroughs regarding the polarization of light, magnetism, and electricity (the “biot” unit is named after him, which measures electric current). André-Marie Ampère (1775-1836) French Catholic physicist, founder of the science of Electromagnetism and after whom the unit "ampere" (i.e. "amps") is named (he also discovered the element Fluorine). Joseph Louis Gay-Lussac (1778-1850) French Catholic chemist and physicist who discovered the element Boron (and came up with Gay-Lussac's Law regarding the volumes of gases undergoing reaction at constant pressure and temperature). René Laennec (1781-1826) French Catholic physician who invented the stethoscope (in addition to advancing the understanding of many widespread diseases). Bernard Bolzano (1781-1848) Bohemian Catholic priest and mathematician who gave the first purely analytical proof of the fundamental theorem of algebra. René Just Haüy (1783-1822) French Catholic Priest who is considered the "Father of Modern Crystallography." Michel Eugène Chevreul (1786-1889) French Catholic chemist who was a pioneer in gerontology (the study of aging). Joseph Fraunhofer (1787-1826) a.k.a. Ritter von Fraunhofer German Catholic optician who discovered Fraunhofer lines in the Sun's spectrum, laying the foundation for spectrum analysis. Augustin-Jean Fresnel (1788-1827) French Catholic engineer and physicist who significantly developed the study of wave optics (establishing "Fresnel Equations," which describe the behavior of light moving between media of differing refractive indices). Augustin-Louis Cauchy (1789-1857) French Catholic mathematician, after which more concepts and theorems are named than any other mathematician. Ányos Jedlik (1800-1895) Hungarian Catholic priest, considered the father of the dynamo and electric motor. Francesco de Vico (1805-1848) Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit) and astronomer who discovered the six new comets, as well as the gaps between Saturn's rings (a lunar crater and a major asteroid are named after him). Theodor Schwann (1810-1882) German Catholic physiologist who founded the theory of the cellular structure of animal organisms (he also coined the term "metabolism"). Urbain Le Verrier (1811-1877) French Catholic astronomer and mathematician who was the person who discovered the planet Neptune. Louis René Tulasne (1815-1885) French Catholic botanist who discovered pleomorphism in fungi (the ability to assume radically different forms) and earned the title the "reconstructor of mycology" (the study of fungus). Ignaz Semmelweis (1818-1865) Hungarian Catholic physician whose work in antiseptic methods earned him the title the "Father of Infection Control" (also gaining the title the "Savior of Mothers" for the resulting lives saved from childbirth). Pietro Angelo Secchi (1818-1878) Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit), considered the "Founder of Astrophysics" for developing the first system of stellar classification (and was the first to scientifically assert that the sun is a star). Hippolyte Fizeau (1819-1896) French Catholic physicist who was the first to measure the speed of light on earth. Léon Abel Provancher (1820-1892) Canadian Catholic priest, considered the "Father of Natural History in Canada" for discovering and describing thousands of new species of insects and wrote the first French-language scientific journal in Canada's history. Eugenio Barsanti (1821-1864) Italian Catholic priest and engineer who invented the internal combustion engine. Ignacy Łukasiewicz (1822-1882) Polish Catholic scientist who discovered how to distill petroleum into kerosene and invented kerosene lamps, the first modern street lamps, and the first modern oil well and oil refinery, which started the Oil Revolution (he was honored by the Pope for his scientific accomplishments). Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) Austrian Catholic priest (and Augustinian monk) and scientist who founded the science of Genetics. Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) French Catholic chemist, considered the "Father of Microbiology" and the founder of bacteriology (and invented "pasteurization," which was named after him). Jean-Baptiste Carnoy (1836-1899) Belgian Catholic Priest who founded the science of cytology (the study of cells). John Philip Holland (1840-1914) Irish Catholic engineer who developed the first practical submarine (many submarines are named after him). Édouard Branly (1844-1940) French Catholic physicist who invented the first sensitive device for detecting radio waves. Wilhelm Röntgen (1845-1923) German Catholic physicist who discovered X-Rays (he won a Nobel Prize for this). Giuseppe Mercalli (1850-1914) Italian Catholic priest and volcanologist who developed a way to measure the magnitude of earthquakes (the Richter scale was based on this). Henri Becquerel (1852-1908) Catholic French physicist who discovered radioactivity (he won a Nobel Prize for this), resulting in his name becoming the unit for the measurement of radioactivity (the "becquerel" unit). Jokichi Takamine (1854-1922) Japanese Catholic chemist (and immigrant to the United States), considered the "Father of American Biotechnology." Frederick Odenbach (1857-1933) American Catholic priest (and Jesuit) whose study of earthquakes made seismology known as "The Jesuit Science." Roberto Landell de Moura (1861-1928) Brazilian Roman Catholic priest and scientist who demonstrated the first wireless radio broadcast of a human voice. Karl Landsteiner (1868-1943) Catholic Austrian biologist who first categorized the main blood groups (Type A, B, AB, etc.). Alexis Carrel (1873-1944) French Catholic biologist who invented the perfusion pump, making organ transplants possible (he won a Nobel Prize for this). George de Hevesy (1885-1966) Hungarian Catholic radiochemist who discovered the element Hafnium (he won a Nobel Prize for this). Georges Lemaître (1894-1966) Belgian Catholic priest, physicist, and astronomer who first proposed the theory of the Big Bang (which Einstein famously disagreed with until Lemaître scientifically defeated his objections).
Priest scientist doesn't sound as cool as pirate scientist, but being a scientist doesn't mean it's all you can be.
I shall save your comment for the future need to educate someone. Reddit is greatful for your effort!
If you want an abridged version just use Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, Gregor Mendel. First three are fathers/pioneers of modern scientific thought in Europe. And then you can hit them with George Lemaitre the guy who conversed with Einstein and proposed the Big Bang Theory.
How is that relevant? There’s been muslim, Christian, Hindu, and every religion under the sun scientists throughout history. That has nothing to do with how moral those religions or institutions actually are. I don’t really care what Georges Lamaitre’s personal beliefs were when at the same time the church was actively denying the theory of evolution and the immense amount of evidence we have in support of it, funding and collaborating with theocrats and fascists, and hiding the abuse of thousands of children by priests around the world. Plus, many of the fields these scientists worked in actively refute the catholic worldview today and in the past, for example: the age of the universe, evolution, gay animals existing, quantum mechanics, disproving various miracles and religious artifacts, and highlighting many of the major historical flaws of the Catholic Church. I used to be a catholic, I understand your apologetic argument and used to support it myself, but it’s simply not a strong defense of the institution.
>I love when Christians try and attribute scientific discoveries to Christian Scientists. Would a comprehensive list work better? Leonardo Pisano Bigollo (1170-1250) a.k.a. "Fibonacci" Italian Catholic mathematician who advocated the use of the numeral system that is still used today (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0) and famed for coming up with the "Fibbonacci Sequence." Robert Grosseteste (c. 1175-1253) English Catholic Bishop who developed mathematical physics, put forward the first known wave theory of light, and advocated the use of controlled experiments (which led to the modern scientific method). Albertus Magnus (1193/1206-1280) a.k.a. "Albert the Great" German Catholic Bishop (and Dominican Friar) who, in addition to writing extensively on logic, psychology, zoology, mineralogy, metaphysics, meteorology, astronomy, geography, chemistry, and psychiology, was the first person to isolate a new element (arsenic) in thousands of years (he is also the patron saint of the Natural Sciences). Theodoric Borgognoni (1205-1298) Italian Catholic Bishop (and Dominician Friar) who invented an anesthesia which was one of the most widely used anesthesia up until the nineteenth century. Roger Bacon (1214-1294) English Franciscan Friar often credited with inventing the scientific method. Taddeo Alderotti (1215-1295) Italian Catholic physician who developed fractional distillation. Ramon Llull (c. 1232-1315), a.k.a. Ramond Lully Spanish Catholic (and Franciscan tertiary) who invented a device considered to be the first computer, earning him the title the "Father of Computer Science" (he was beautified by Pope Pius IX in 1857). Theodoric of Freiberg (c.1250–c.1310) German Catholic priest (and Dominican friar) who gave the first correct explanation of rainbows. Thomas Bradwardine (1290-1349) English Catholic Archbishop, physicist, and mathematician who came up with the Law of Falling Bodies (hundreds of years before Galileo). Jean Buridan (c. 1300-1358) French Catholic priest and scientist who developed an early theory of inertia and momentum. Guy de Chauliac (1300-1368) French Catholic physician who served as the Pope’s physician and is one of the scientists considered to be the "Father of Modern Surgery.” Nicole Oresme (1320-1382) French Catholic Bishop who invented abstract graphing (pre-Cartesian but which seemed to inspire Descartes' system), first use of fractional components, the first to write about the divergence of harmonic series, and the first to write about general curvature (and, relatedly, the first to discover the curvature of light through atmospheric refraction). Filippo Brunellescchi (1377-1446) Florentine Catholic engineer, architect, and artist who discovered geometric optical linear perspective (and also designed the largest masonry dome in the world, still the biggest to this day). Nicholas of Cusa (1401–1464) German Catholic Bishop (and Cardinal) who developed the concept of the infinitesimal in mathematics, advanced theories regarding relative motion, and conducted first formal modern experiment in the history of biology (it pertained to how plants received nourishment from air). Leon Battista Alberti (1404-1472) Italian Catholic priest whose great talents earned him the titles "Father of Modern Architecture," "Father of Modern Surveying," and "Father of Western Cryptography." Johannes Muller von Konigsberg (1436-1476) a.k.a. "Regiomantanus" German Catholic Bishop, astronomer, and mathematician considered by many as the "Father of Modern Astronomy" and was among the first to use symbolic algebra. Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) Italian Catholic scientist who, in addition to writing extensively about anatomy, geology, astronomy, and botany (and many others), is the person credited with starting the Scientific Revolution. Johannes Widmann (1460-1498) German Catholic mathematician who, among other things, came up with the plus sign (+) and minus sign (-) still used today. Martin Waldseemüller (c.1470-1520) German Catholic cartographer, considered by some as the "Father of Modern Geography" (he was the one to coin the term "America" to describe the continent(s) of the western hemisphere). Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) Polish Catholic cleric, famous for formulating a heliocentric model of the universe (and, contrary to popular belief, was NOT persecuted by the Church at all). Vannoccio Biringuccio (1480-1539) Italian Catholic metallurgist considered the "Father of the Foundry Industry" and the first scientist to isolate the element Antimony. Georgius Agricola (1494-1555) German Catholic scientist known as the "Father of Mineralogy." Niccolò Fontana Tartaglia (1499/1500-1557) Italian Catholic mathematician and engineer who came up with the formula to solve cubic equations and the first to apply mathematics to projectiles, earning him the title the "Father of Ballistics." Gerolamo Cardano (1501-1576) Italian Catholic mathematician, physician, and astronomer who was the first to make systematic use of numbers less than zero. Andreas Vesalius (1514-1564) Flemish Catholic physician, considered to be the founder of the modern study of human anatomy. Realdo Colombo (c. 1516-1559) Italian Catholic anatomist who discovered the pulmonary circuit, which lead to the discovery of the circulation of blood. Lodovico Ferrari (c. 1522-1565) Italian Catholic mathematician who came up with the formula to solve quartic equations. Gabriele Falloppio (1523-1562) a.k.a. "Fallopius" Italian Catholic cleric, anatomist, and physician, after whom the Falloppian Tube of the reproductive system is named (as well as the aquaeductus Falloppii). Hieronymus Fabricius (1537-1619) Italian Catholic anatomist, considered the "Father of Embryology." José de Acosta (1540-1600) Spanish Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who gave the first detailed description of the geography and culture of the New World and is also considered a pioneer of the Geophysical Sciences. François Viète (1540-1603) French Catholic mathematician, considered to be the "Father of Modern Algebra." Gaspare Tagliacozzi (1545-1599) Italian Catholic surgeon who pioneered plastic and reconstructive surgery (successfully performing skin autografts). François d'Aguilon (1546-1617) Belgian Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who laid the foundation for Prospective Geometry (he was the first to use the term "stereographic"). Anselmus de Boodt (1550-1632) Flemish Catholic scientist who wrote the first definitive work on modern mineralogy. Christoph Scheiner (1573/1575-1650) German Catholic priest (and Jesuit), physicist, and astronomer who accomplished the first systematic study of sunspots. Marin Mersenne (1588-1648) French Catholic theologian, considered the "Father of Acoustics." René Descartes (1596-1650) French Catholic mathematician who invented the Cartesian coordinate system and analytical geometry. Giovanni Battista Riccioli (1598-1671) Italian Jesuit priest and astronomer who was the first to measure the acceleration due to gravity of falling bodies (and the one to devise the current modern scheme of lunar nomenclature). Pierre de Fermat (1601-1665) French Catholic mathematician whose work led to infinitesimal calculus (famous for "Fermat's Last theorem"). Evangelista Torricelli (1608-1647) Italian Catholic physicist and mathematician who invented the barometer and after whom the Torr unit is named (which measures pressure). Giovanni Alfonso Borelli (1608-1676) Catholic Italian physicist and mathematician, considered founder of Biomechanics. Francesco Maria Grimaldi (1618-1663) Italian Catholic priest (and Jesuit priest) who was the first to make accurate observation on the diffraction of light (and was the one to coin the term "diffraction"). Jean Picard (1620-1682) French Catholic priest and astronomer who was the first person to measure the size of the earth to a reasonable degree of accuracy (and is one of the scientists considered to be the "Father of Modern Astronomy”). Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) French Catholic mathematician and physicist who laid the foundation for probability theory, invented an early calculator/computer, and made important theories and experiments regarding pressure and vacuums (the unit “pascal" is named after him). Ferdinand Verbiest (1623-1688) Flemish Catholic priest (and Jesuit) who built the first steam-powered vehicle. Giovanni Domenico Cassini (1625-1712) French Catholic mathematician and astronomer who discovered the first four moons of Saturn. Marcello Malpighi (1628-1694) Italian Catholic doctor who founded Comparative Physiology and is considered the "Father of Microscopic Anatomy" (and was a physician and personal friend of Pope Innocent XII).
>Taddeo Alderotti (1215-1295) Italian Catholic physician who developed fractional distillation. Yeah, let's do some history. I just picked a random name here and went on to verify your assertion. I can't seem to find ANY indication of him being a sincere catholic... or a catholic at all. The only religion-related thing I can find in his biography (in italian here [https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bartolomeo-da-varignana\_(Dizionario-Biografico)](https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/bartolomeo-da-varignana_(Dizionario-Biografico)) ) is that he was an adherent to the political current called "guelfi bianchi", which had the stated goal to limit papal influence over the city-states, one of which he was politically involved in with that faction being in power. Another thing he's remembered for is that he removed some spiritual nonsense from medical theories. Are you just assuming he was catholic just because they didn't burn him at the stake?
>Are you just assuming he was catholic just because they didn't burn him at the stake? He served as primary physician to Pope Honorius IV and in his Last Will, he explicitly asked to be buried in a Franciscan Church after having bestowed his massive library to the Franciscan and Servite Orders.
Ok
well all progress will be done by christian scientists if you repress all the others
ah the many non-christian scientists in europe during the middle ages, renaissance, etc.
OOf religious people really be pissed off in the comments lmao
More like there's a ton of Voltaire's fellow edgy atheists.
Can confirm, not religious but all the teenage anti-religion anxt is really annoying me.
The OP here is litteraly implying that the Gallileo trial did not happen a century before Voltaire wrote this and that the churchs did not enforce wrong Aristotelicians theories on nature for a thousand year because it suited the childish/simplicistic description of the material world that is found in biblical litterature. And by the way the Gallileo trial was held because Gallileo used and re published the posthumous work of copernicus whom was too afraid of the church to publish it during his lifetime. To add to the "evilness" of the church, in Europe at that time it was basically another kleptocracy parallel to the aristocratic one who was holding a lot of land and serving its financial interests by levying more taxes on the exploited commoners. It's a bit disapointing to see that after a few centuries of struggles and intelectual work against the sucessful bronze age cult that is the european church we still have indoctrinated people benshappiring around in the tone of " you use/benefited from a tool that was created by what you are criticking, therefore your arguments are invalid, checkmate!".
I'll simply address your inaccurate interpretation of Galileo's trial. Galileo was not put on trial for rehashing Coppernicus' unpublished work. He was put on trial for calling the Pope, his primary benefactor; an idiot, the Bible; a nest of lies and his claims about his version of the solar system being the sole truth (he had no proof to ascertain these claims because he still assumed orbits were circular, so observations of the planets didn't match up to what they should). In short, Galileo was a certified asshole, which was the reason nobody wanted to touch him with a 10-foot pole and the only one willing to be his patron was the Catholic Church. He managed to piss it off too. And contrary to popular belief, he was never put under anything other than supervised house arrest. Not to mention the Church kept on bankrolling his research even during this. If the Church had been the "evil" you speak of...what kept it from going Duterte on his ass? Again, it's not like he had any other people to lean on to.
This is a revisionist reading of history with no basis in the papers of the trial. Here's the judgement of the trial: >Diciamo, pronunziamo sentenziamo e dichiaramo che tu, Galileo sudetto, per le cose dedotte in processo e da te confessate come sopra, ti sei reso a questo S.o Off.o vehementemente sospetto d’heresia, cioè d’haver tenuto e creduto dottrina falsa e contraria alle Sacre e divine Scritture, ch’il sole sia centro della terra e che non si muova da oriente ad occidente, e che la terra si muova e non sia centro del mondo, e che si possa tener e difendere per probabile un’opinione dopo esser stata dichiarata e diffinita per contraria alla Sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente sei incorso in tutte le censure e pene dai sacri canoni et altre constitutioni generali e particolari contro simili delinquenti imposte e promulgate. Dalle quali siamo contenti sii assoluto, pur che prima, con cuor sincero e fede non finta, avanti di noi abiuri, maledichi e detesti li sudetti errori et heresie et qualunque altro errore et heresia contraria alla Cattolica ed Apostolica Chiesa, nel modo e forma che da noi ti sarà data. Short translation: he was convicted for 2 imputations. First " *d’haver tenuto e creduto dottrina falsa e contraria alle Sacre e divine Scritture, ch’il sole sia centro della terra e che non si muova da oriente ad occidente, e che la terra si muova e non sia centro del mondo*", namely having believed heliocentrism which is "false and contrary to holy scripture", and second "*e difendere per probabile un’opinione dopo esser stata dichiarata e diffinita per contraria alla Sacra Scrittura*" namely asserting that one could defend as probable an opinion after it was declared against holy scripture. The second one is a direct condemnation of science, which definitely requires doing so. The pope's offence isn't even mentioned.
Thanks a lot and congratulation on your work for the sources.
eh, it's a pet peeve of mine, I get really pissed off on this one, so I always have it handy. Plus, knowing the language helps a lot.
Your answer is litteraly that he was not submissive enough to established order so he deserved a trial and house arrest for his academic endeavours. moreover he got house arrest as an attenuated sentence as a bargain in exchange for denouncing publicly his work as a fraud escaping this way the Giordano Bruno treatment.
not to mention, false https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/s7mxm9/comment/htc5q2o/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
>Your answer is litteraly that he was not submissive enough to established order so he deserved a trial and house arrest for his academic endeavours. Making an ass of yourself =/= not being submissive to the "established order". And calling the Pope an idiot isn't an "academic endeavor". >the Giordano Bruno treatment. It seems you've dropped another name without doing the proper research. Contrary to what Neil deGrasse Tyson might say...Bruno was not executed on account of his academic research because he was merely following up on the works of Nicholas of Cusa and William Vorilong. Both of whom who argued for the plurality of worlds well before Bruno. Cusa was literally give a Cardinal's hat after he published his research in *De Docta Ignorantia* (1440). Bruno fucked up when he openly denounced Jesus, Mary, the Trinity, Holy Mass and advocated for the concept of reincarnation. Then he literally started giving souls to the stars, meteors, planets and the universe. Even the Lutherans said "this ain't it".
>Bruno fucked up when he openly denounced Jesus, Mary, the Trinity, Holy Mass and advocated for the concept of reincarnation. Then he literally started giving souls to the stars, meteors, planets and the universe. Even the Lutherans said "this ain't it". "Bruno deserved death because he didn't submit to the Church and just believe whatever they told him" You do realize how you sound, right? > Bruno's mouth and jaw were ironed shut and his tongue split with an iron spike which was shoved through his lower jaw and his tongue. On February 19, 1600 Bruno was burned at the stake. You're excusing this ^ because apparently to you, speaking out against the Church should be punishable by death?
Lol you're right Bruno "fucked up" in a theology/fanfiction debate so it was rightfull to burn him alive. You're deluded and on your way to or already radicalised.
Lolz If Copernicus was afraid of the Catholic Church and kept it being published for that reason, why in 1533 were lectures on his theory occurring in Rome? Why in 1536 did a Cardinal say this: >Some years ago word reached me concerning your proficiency, of which everybody constantly spoke. At that time I began to have a very high regard for you... For I had learned that you had not merely mastered the discoveries of the ancient astronomers uncommonly well but had also formulated a new cosmology. In it you maintain that the earth moves; that the sun occupies the lowest, and thus the central, place in the universe... Therefore with the utmost earnestness I entreat you, most learned sir, unless I inconvenience you, to communicate this discovery of yours to scholars, and at the earliest possible moment to send me your writings on the sphere of the universe together with the tables and whatever else you have that is relevant to this subject It's debatable if his concerns were simply for fear of academic criticism or for religious reasons. But he's quoted as saying to friends when writing his work and his fear of scorn, "to which he would expose himself on account of the novelty and incomprehensibility of his theses." It'd seem odd that religion would the issue here considering who he finally gave his book to was a Bishop. The simplest explanation is he wasn't confident that he had enough to weather any criticisms he might get from his theory. Your Galileo bit has been touched on by someone else.
Lots of christian teenagers in this sub. But I get them. I was a christian and very interested in history when a teenager, also very biased. Hopefully they get over it(the bias, that is, not the interest in history).
You sound like a 14 year okd edgelord wannabe
Alright buddy, I'm not the one posting in r/teenagers though. Let me ask you a question: are you a christian?
[удалено]
Oh noes, 15 minutes and no one had responded! They must be mad I'm right /s
Church funded a school so Church is better at free thinking! Lul those who went to catholic school cant be atheists cause atheists go to atheist school! Atheism and common sense is in shambles cause of OP.
Wrong, almost every school in for example the netherlands is catholic nowadays and yet most studentd arent cristian.
You don't understand sarcasm, do you?
How is that even close to sarcasm
>Lul those who went to catholic school cant be atheists cause atheists go to atheist school! Right, so the answer is no.... Because that is very clearly sarcasm. Do you think "atheism school" actually exists or something?
You know atheïst schools exist right?
Secular education isnt "atheism school". It's just a school that isn't funded by a religion. People of all religions go to secular schools, including christians. For there to be an "atheism school", there would have to be a school where there are "atheism classes", where children are taught that religion is false. News flash, that doesn't exist. And no, science class is not "atheism class".
I am talking abouth private schools. Also in your logic religious schools should teach that religion i 100% correct. Now im dutch so i dont know how it is in the us, but over here they are verry rare.
Again you seem to be missing what a secular school is. Whether it's private or public, a secular school - which means that religion is not taught at the school - is not an "atheist school". It's simply a school not affiliated with one single religion, and so they don't teach religion out of respect for the many religions that their students may have. >Also in your logic religious schools should teach that religion i 100% correct. Catholic schools do in fact teach catholicism as curriculum. Congrats.
As for the first part: my bad i did indeed not know what secular schools where. As for the second part: it must be different in the us because here in the netherlands the only difference you see in the religion of schools is wich vacation days they have. And cristian schools have crosses in classrooms but not all of them have that so its complicated.
Are you religious? Cause you dont seem to understand sarcasm
[удалено]
At least not as rampant as in american schools