Science in a world without Protestant Reformation

Often in AH Fiction where Protestant Reformation doesn't happen, such as The Alteration by Kingsley Adams, science is presented as suppressed, persecuted, or at least looked down upon. But, if we look at real history, the opposite seems more likely.

Before the Protestant Reformation, Catholic Church tolerated, or even promoted, science. In the Middle Ages for example, monasteries preserved tons of important knowledge from before the Fall of the Roman Empire. And the church didn't see science as an affront to God. If anything, it was a means of understanding God.

Roger Bacon, a 13th century monk and a scientist (or a natural philosopher as they were called back then), wrote of the importance of mathematics("mathematics is the door and the key to the sciences") and experimentation ("experiment is the only safe guide in such investigation"). He also predicted, or rather theorized, the coming of motor boats ("It's possible to make Engines to sail withall, as that either fresh or salt water vessels may be guided by the help of one man, and made sail with a greater swiftness, than others will which are full of men to help them. "), cars("It's possible to make a Chariot move with an inestimable swiftnesse, and this motion to be without the help of any living creature. "), and even airplanes("It's possible to make Engines for flying, a man sitting in the midst whereof, by turning onely about an Instrument, which moves artificiall Wings made to beat the Aire, much after the fashion of a Birds flight."). It should also be noted that Bacon discovered spectrum before Isaac Newton.

Of course it all changed when the Protestant Reformation started. Martin Luther spoke against sciences, such as Copernicus' heliocentric thought. And as Protestantism spread out, the Catholic Church answered with Counter-Reformation, which turned tolerance to science into repression, and many Scientists, such as Galileo, became victims of the Counter-Reformation.

But how would have science turned out in a world where Protestant Reformation, for one reason or another, never happened?
 
Well, even though there were catholic scientists before the reformation and counter-reformation and that didn't change afterwards. Religion can only be pro-science force while science does not contradict dogma (at least until a new interpretation of dogma, more compatible with the evidence emerges). But it is a good point that the refomraton and counter-reformation led to a much more militant approach to religion which stopped an ongoing trend of secularization in the Catholic Church andt ended up hurting science among other things.
 
Last edited:
And as Protestantism spread out, the Catholic Church answered with Counter-Reformation, which turned tolerance to science into repression, and many Scientists, such as Galileo, became victims of the Counter-Reformation.

But how would have science turned out in a world where Protestant Reformation, for one reason or another, never happened?

Big part of a science ( mathematics, physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc.) did not touch the religious dogmas and, anyway, there were numerous XVIII - XIX century French scientists and “father” of genetics was a monk.
 
Big part of a science ( mathematics, physics, chemistry, mechanics, etc.) did not touch the religious dogmas and, anyway, there were numerous XVIII - XIX century French scientists and “father” of genetics was a monk.

Plus, one of the early proponents of the big bang theory was a Catholic priest.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
The thesis in the OP is one that I have long held and defended. While no organised structure (religious or otherwise) is ever free of bias or dogma, the imple fact is that we can say that the Catholic Church was far more often a force supporting science and investigation than one opposing such things. This is especially potent in the context of scholasticism, which was dominant in the pre-Reformation Catholic intellectual world. Aristotelian logic was not only embraced, but actively applied in concerted effecrts to understand the physical world. This is the basis for the Western path towards the scientific method. Those who claim that science, intellectual freedom and technological advances came about thanks to the Referomation have it backward. Those things were possible mainly in spite of the Reformation. Often actually thanks (in considerable part) to a lot of pre-existing (Catholic) "ground-work".

Even the oft-heard claim that economic innovations that led to a modern understanding of the free market came from the Reformation isn't true. A lot of thinkers who sparked such new insights (right down to Locke's vision of property rights and their importance to healthy economic interaction and financial security within society) were all too often bastardised forms of arguments they had cribbed from the School of Salamanca. They hardly ever bothered to actually credit that source, but the intellectual debt is pretty clear. Even the latter day version of the "Protestant capitalism" myth (namely the story of the "Protestant work ethic") is explicitly based on observations made in Switzerland. A lot of them in... Catholic parts of Switzerland.

(For those critical of the excesses of capitalism, it might also be worth noting that the School of Salamanca, while laying all the ground-work for every latter-day defence of free trade and free exchange of goods and services, also explicitly considered the fundamental dignity of man, and held lengthy debates on such topics as usury, the responsibility of care, and the proper role of morality in business. The Protestants who cribbed their arguments rarely copied those parts. Might a "Catholic world" have seen a more human(e) capitalism? I for one suspect that might have been the case.)

It is also important to note that even without the Reformation (a radical transition), impulses towards reform within the Church were already underway. The hostile nature of the Reformation prompted a wave of reactionary counter-moves. Without the Reformation, I think we'd see the opposite. Lacking an external enemy, the Church would have reformed itself in the end. It would surely have been a troubled process, but compared to the horrors of the Wars of Religion, it seems like it'd be pretty smooth sailing, all in all. The conclusion is that most of the "temporal" criticisms of the Church (mainly to do with corruption) were valid, but didn't require the Reformation in order to b solved. If anything, the Reformation caused far more ills than it cured. Better a corrupt(-but-getting-better) Church that is fairly relaxed on dogma and open to intellectual debate, than a "purified" by deeply reactionary and dogmatic Church that will lay down the law by any means necessary.

Let us not neglect to note that the "piety contests" of the Reformation era led to absurd mutual suspicion and a general "holier than thou" attitude on all sides. This led to a paranoid milieu where terror reigned and accusations of heresy or impiety could and did have deadly consequences. Nearly all witch-hunts in the history of Christian Europe were a product of this period. (And while the Catholic countries were not entirely blameless, it must be noted that the vast majority of such atrocities were committed by Protestants, who were far more inclined to embrace "the layman position"-- which all too often meant eagerly embracing folk beliefs. The Catholic clergy, certainly pre-Reformation, had contrarily held the position that witchcraft didn't exist. Throughout history, if you were accused of witchcraft, a Catholic clergyman showing up was a good sign, since it meant that he'd demand evidence, whereas your neighbours would be eager to hang you.)

Finally, and this is somewhat more abstract, I believe that the Reformation marked a victory of Platonism over Aristotelianism. The Catholic Church had embraced Aristotle during the High Middle Ages, becoming what may be termed a religion of reason. Many a Protestant agitator saw this as the reason for the Church's decadence, and strove to make Christianity less "worldly". Christianity, they felt, had to become a religion of piety again. Not beholden to this sinful vale of tears. (We see the same physical-world-hating impulse in the Cathar view of things, and in 'proto-Protestants' like Savonarola.) This automatically meant less respect for science, and more respect for dogmatic positions. (Let me assure you: flat earth creationism is a very Protestant thing. No self-respecting Catholic world would produce that drivel. As the OP states: even that whole thing about heliocentrism was quite painful for all parties involved -- they knew Galileo was right, but couldn't openly admit it -- and if there'd been no Reformation with its attendant social pressures, it would never have come to a trial.)

Ultimately, in a world without the Reformation, I see science progressing more quickly. A lot of atrocities and follies would have been avoided. Naturally, the ATL would no doubt have its own unique problems and draw-backs, but on the whole, I'm confident that things would be better. Socially, scientifically, economically, politically and even I daresay even just religiously.
 
I think that theory about science without Reformation is so popular because the majority of this AH fiction writers came from Protestant countries themselves so they are naturally biased against the Catholic Church
 
the answer requires three more questions: 1) do we still have competing states as opposed to a spanish/french/HRE unified west? 2) do we still have the rise of mercantillism and later capitalism? 3) does europe discover the new world and change the demographic equation with new world crops?
 
Ultimately, in a world without the Reformation, I see science progressing more quickly. A lot of atrocities and follies would have been avoided. Naturally, the ATL would no doubt have its own unique problems and draw-backs, but on the whole, I'm confident that things would be better. Socially, scientifically, economically, politically and even I daresay even just religiously.
I have significant doubts because I don't think philosophical attitudes actually had nearly the importance often ascribed to them in advancing or retarding scientific progress or, for that matter, in changing much else except what philosophers talk about at any given time. Just to look at the early modern period, there were great Catholic scientists and mathematicians like Galileo, Copernicus, or Lagrange; and there were great Protestant scientists and mathematicians like Kepler, Linnaeus, and, of course, Newton, along with a great many others on both sides. Neither Catholics nor Protestants seem to have been any cleverer or more willing to investigate the natural world than the other. It seems to me that other factors like the development of the telescope or pendulum clocks (the latter, apparently, was important for the discovery of the Galilean rules of motion, which led by and by to Newtonian mechanics), or the accretion of mathematical knowledge that ultimately manifested in the calculus were far more important than whether Protestantism existed or not.

About the only possible positive effect I can think of that avoiding the Reformation would have on science would be reducing the frequency of wars, thereby allowing more resources to go into investigating the natural world; but considering how effectively the "most Catholic" king of France supported his Catholic brethren in the Thirty Years War, or how willing to make peace England and France were during the Hundred Years War, I doubt that would do much either. Otherwise, I don't think the Reformation had any noticeable effect positive or negative on the development of European knowledge of the natural world, but merely adjusted the details of exactly how that panned out.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
I have significant doubts because I don't think philosophical attitudes actually had nearly the importance often ascribed to them in advancing or retarding scientific progress or, for that matter, in changing much else except what philosophers talk about at any given time. Just to look at the early modern period, there were great Catholic scientists and mathematicians like Galileo, Copernicus, or Lagrange; and there were great Protestant scientists and mathematicians like Kepler, Linnaeus, and, of course, Newton, along with a great many others on both sides. Neither Catholics nor Protestants seem to have been any cleverer or more willing to investigate the natural world than the other. It seems to me that other factors like the development of the telescope or pendulum clocks (the latter, apparently, was important for the discovery of the Galilean rules of motion, which led by and by to Newtonian mechanics), or the accretion of mathematical knowledge that ultimately manifested in the calculus were far more important than whether Protestantism existed or not.

About the only possible positive effect I can think of that avoiding the Reformation would have on science would be reducing the frequency of wars, thereby allowing more resources to go into investigating the natural world; but considering how effectively the "most Catholic" king of France supported his Catholic brethren in the Thirty Years War, or how willing to make peace England and France were during the Hundred Years War, I doubt that would do much either. Otherwise, I don't think the Reformation had any noticeable effect positive or negative on the development of European knowledge of the natural world, but merely on the details of exactly how that panned out.

Well, that is what one might call the materialist view of history. You are free to subscribe to it, but I do not. On the contrary: I quite firmly believe that history is shaped by ideas, more than by anything else. But then, I already revealed my Aristotelian affiliation. Essence precedes existence. Meaning, in this context: things like the development of the telescope or pendulum clocks are not the things that move history. They are the result of ideas, which are then translated into actuality. But the ideas must come first. They are essential, and they must logically precede their material outcomes. Which automatically means that different prevalent ideas will lead to different outcomes. (e.g. -- A society that values logic and causality and considers the physical world worth exeriencing will be far more likely to produce scientific achievements than one that denies logic and causality and considers the physical world an unworthy, fallen realm that we must endeavour to transcend. Those two hypothetical societies will not produce equal outcomes. To be clear: those are examples, and they do not reflect my actual opinion of any one religious conviction.)

All this naturally doesn't mean that (in OTL after the Reformation) there weren't "smart guys on both sides", but I do believe that the way the potential of any person is applied in the world differs based on which ideas are dominant in any given society and/or period. As such, comparing two sides of a post-Reformation world and calling them roughly equal isn't really a useful argument here. After all: the whole thesis is that both sides were ultimately stunted by the Reformation. We are not comparing the perceived virtues of the OTL Protestants to those of OTL Post-Reformation Catholics. We are comparing both of those to hypothetical ATL Catholics who never encountered the Reformation in the first place. And that's a bit of a different ball-game, I'd say.

In any event, a lot of allohistorical speculation rests on one's premises. If one believes that ideas are the prime mover of historical progression, then one will come to different expectations (about the ATL) than one who believes that ideas are fairly incosequential. Even if both those persons are perfectly logical in their arguments, the different premises can't be reconciled. I'm not sure this is the place to hold the more abstract discussion about the merits of those differing premises.
 
I think the effect of Protestantism was mostly indirect, Protestantism promoted literacy, education and language standardization both great for helping science, but the counter-reformation adoted the tools of the Protestants, which meant that pushed the same policies, which benefitted scientific progress. Protestantism with its married clergy and focus on education also created a surplus of academics, who couldn’t all end up in the clergy. At last the Protestant states with their more centralized and dominant state power was also able to invest heavily into improvement in technology and know how.

As such I think the Reformation was great for science, but honestly even if Europe had stayed Catholic, we would have seen continued investment in science and technology, and the Catholic Church would not have fought research, maybe it would have fought the introduction of some technologies, but even when it had complete religious dominance, it wasn’t able to do so.
 
Top