The Pope, a Scientist

In another thread, I saw something that inspired this one:

For whatever reason, the idea that reasoned theories are only as valid s the experiments comes forth earlier--i.e. Aristotle's philosophy is shown as invalid. Perhaps a theologian reasons the following:

"We can only understand God if we understand the world He created for us. Let us go forth and examine it. The phiilosophers and scientists are not God, therefore they are falible."

Logical--and then this theologian becomes Pope, and can put his thoughts into church doctrine.

So, lets say this Pope, whom we'll call Matthew I, replaces Paschal II. The scientific method, or something reasonably close to it, is thus considered very Christian, and the Catholic Church strongly encourages scientific investigation, and technological progress, starting in the 12th century.

So, how quickly would science and technology advance, and what other changes come from this?
 
So, lets say this Pope, whom we'll call Matthew I, replaces Paschal II.

You choose a bad POD. In those times Popes had to be mainly politician. Good politician. Else they wouldn't have lasted enough to write their first bulla.

Anyway the idea is good. But I would move the POD to the early reformation era: instead of endorsing counter reform and the most conservative part of church establishment, the Pope boldly decide to fight the "nonsense idiocy vomited by the Antechrist's minions" with "the cold and pure light of reason".
A possible POD could be if cardinal Pole is elected instead of Carafa in 1549-1550 election.
 
Flattered, and a thought...

I'm pleased that my comment inspired you to start something. So--suppose that whatever candidate comes up IS political--now we just need to give him a reason to promulgate science. Either he promotes science out of sincere belief like the original post--and he uses political capital to push it through--or there's a good reason poitically for him to push science forwards.

Perhaps durring a big arguement, he pushes forth a questioning of Aristotle and other ancient philosphers when a rival is staunchly defending them--he pushes it forwards for the sole purpose of dispriving a rival (after conducting the experiments in private)
 
One idea might be for the pope's interest to render the artes mechanicae more respectable for churchmen. Twelfth-century ecclesiasts generally didn't have much of a problem with science, other than that it was a bit infra dig if you wanted to do serious intellectual work. If it gains status, it could come to be viewed as a 'safe' avenue for intellectual pursuits since it generally doesn't draw the inquisition's attention (unlike philosophy and theology) and didn't put you at risk of having to enter worldly quarrels (unlike law). The proper diversion for eirenic, mild-mannered intellectuals, in other words.

There was no need to defend science in 12th-century Europe. The Church didn't start having a real, systemic problem with it until about the 1500s.
 
One idea might be for the pope's interest to render the artes mechanicae more respectable for churchmen. Twelfth-century ecclesiasts generally didn't have much of a problem with science, other than that it was a bit infra dig if you wanted to do serious intellectual work. If it gains status, it could come to be viewed as a 'safe' avenue for intellectual pursuits since it generally doesn't draw the inquisition's attention (unlike philosophy and theology) and didn't put you at risk of having to enter worldly quarrels (unlike law). The proper diversion for eirenic, mild-mannered intellectuals, in other words.

There was no need to defend science in 12th-century Europe. The Church didn't start having a real, systemic problem with it until about the 1500s.

Probably much later: Domingo de Soto worked on accelerated movement before Galileo; the qualms on Galileo's work only appeared after his work was denounced by the swiss calvinists and the initial critics were more phocused on scientific issues...

I think that having more successful catholic forces and the spanish kings support projects like Blasco de Garay's ship or Jeronimo de Ayanz steam pump... maybe the reformed nations would see the catholic rise as the work of devil through these inventions, make them more closed to scientific advance and the catholic ones to see them as God's blessing on them and to support scientific progress.
 
You choose a bad POD. In those times Popes had to be mainly politician. Good politician. Else they wouldn't have lasted enough to write their first bulla.

Anyway the idea is good. But I would move the POD to the early reformation era: instead of endorsing counter reform and the most conservative part of church establishment, the Pope boldly decide to fight the "nonsense idiocy vomited by the Antechrist's minions" with "the cold and pure light of reason".
A possible POD could be if cardinal Pole is elected instead of Carafa in 1549-1550 election.
The reason I chose that PoD was because I wanted something earlier than the Renaissance, rather than during. I actually though about some PoD's even earlier than that, such as replacing Leo III, or the short-reigning Stephen IV. The problem was that the earlier you go, the more people have to focus on just surviving. OTOH, Charlemagne did have a great interest in learning, despite his lack of writing skill.

@carlton_bach: No need to defend science, but perhaps a need to encourage it.

@NHBL: I like that idea. It works quite well.

EDIT: of course, setting the PoD before 1054 might cause changes in the Eastern Orthodox faith, as that was when the East-West Schism happened. Setting it after might just cause the Eastern Orthodox Church to take the opposite view.
 
Last edited:
Pope John XXI was interested in sciences etc. but he died when his laboratory roof collapsed leading to weird rumours that his experiments were devilish...
 
The reason I chose that PoD was because I wanted something earlier than the Renaissance, rather than during.

In this case I would choose Sylvester II, who was a mathematician and an astrologer of world fame. He gained a reputation of wizard for that knowledge.

His big advantage would be his good relations with the emperor, Otto III (he was his teacher for a while). But making a workable scenario in the year 1000 will be really difficult.
 
In another thread, I saw something that inspired this one:



So, lets say this Pope, whom we'll call Matthew I, replaces Paschal II. The scientific method, or something reasonably close to it, is thus considered very Christian, and the Catholic Church strongly encourages scientific investigation, and technological progress, starting in the 12th century.

So, how quickly would science and technology advance, and what other changes come from this?

The moment someone questions an established church doctrine, the tolerance ends. Even if the catholic church leaves people like galieo alone when the say the earth revolves around the sun, what happens when someone even passively asks, "So why haven't we seen this God guy then anyway?" out comes the witch pyres. I could say more about how religion is by defintion beleiving what your told, but I won't bother. Most people will have noticed that a great deal of religious establishments are more hide-bound then secular ones.

Besides I doubt he'd survive long, It'd be like putting a nice guy in charge of the USSR...:mad::(:)

The idea is a good one though I just don't think that the church is the establishment to carry on this new scientific method...
 
A few thoughts here...

The moment someone questions an established church doctrine, the tolerance ends. Even if the catholic church leaves people like galieo alone when the say the earth revolves around the sun, what happens when someone even passively asks, "So why haven't we seen this God guy then anyway?" out comes the witch pyres. I could say more about how religion is by defintion beleiving what your told, but I won't bother. Most people will have noticed that a great deal of religious establishments are more hide-bound then secular ones.

Besides I doubt he'd survive long, It'd be like putting a nice guy in charge of the USSR...:mad::(:)

The idea is a good one though I just don't think that the church is the establishment to carry on this new scientific method...

If you say, "Why haven't we seen this God guy," you aren't asking a scientific question, you're questioning God's motives. At least, this could be argued by the church. If science is defined as searching for objective facts and useful predictions of the behavior of matter, then the questioning of God is no longer a problem--because you aren't questioning Him. Treat science as akin to geometry, but with solid observations replacing Euclid's postulates, and you're on a possible path.

Then if you add the idea of working backwards--if this complex thing is THUS, then perhaps the basis is THAT. Now, look to see if THAT is true.

The church might not carry on scientific endeavors; all it has to do is make them something worth doing, and nobles will provide patronage to sceintists to please the church and look prosperous.
 
The moment someone questions an established church doctrine, the tolerance ends. Even if the catholic church leaves people like galieo alone when the say the earth revolves around the sun, what happens when someone even passively asks, "So why haven't we seen this God guy then anyway?" out comes the witch pyres. I could say more about how religion is by defintion beleiving what your told, but I won't bother. Most people will have noticed that a great deal of religious establishments are more hide-bound then secular ones.

It's still going to help, though. As long as a society is dedicated to preserving any sort of true faith, it will punish questioning that. Making natural science respectable is not going to change that, but it could create a spirit of freer enquiry in some fields, and that can spill over. Modern (Euro-Lutheran, at least) theology is a good example for that: scientific evidence is taken in as something to refine belief by, not something to be judged according to predetermined belief. Spreading the idea that science allows man to better understand the marvel of God will help that kind of attitude, and the medieval Church still has the opportunity to say that a Scriptural passage that disagrees with science is symbolic (something post-Reformation literalism makes increasingly difficult).

And more importantly, once you get the idea into the collective memory that science is 'harmless' (because showing that a natural phenomenon *is* can not be theologically controversial), the inquisition will simply take less notice of it. For much of its history, the Church got along fine without dictating what science should find, and whenever it tried, it came to grief.
 
Top