You'll have to forgive me for this little excursion into "deep thoughts". Unfortunately, this stuff which in the wrong hands can easily become deadly dull, is responsible for what most of us believe about almost everything. If you think that's an exaggeration, stick around. You're going to become a believer.

Belief, you see, is what this is all about. Historians talk about a way of thinking that developed in Europe around the beginning of the second millennium, dubbed Scholasticism¹. One of the reasons I've always had a little trouble understanding this bit of history is probably the name. It's kind of awful. You'll see in a minute why.

One source describes the phenomenon like this: "There were numerous scholastic philosophies in the Middle Ages, but basic to all scholastic thought was the interplay of faith and reason. For the greatest of the scholastics, this meant the use of reason to deepen the understanding of what is believed on faith and ultimately to give a rational content to faith."

I don't know about you, but to me that sounds a little bit like "if it doesn't fit with your faith then it can't be part of your science". Not very scholarly is it? I mean it's hard enough to come to some sort of understanding of the universe based on observation. So it is not too helpful if you have to constantly "synchronize" your thoughts with a number of pre-ordained beliefs.

The flip side of the argument, "giving rational content to faith", had the subtle but even more unfortunate effect of giving religious beliefs the aura of scientific reasonableness. In today's world the results of that can still be found in for example the argument about the "science" of Creationism. But... we're getting ahead of ourselves.

Let's get back to the aims and results of the scholasticism movement. It all had to do with the teachings of that ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle who'se major works were rediscovered after the fall of Toledo in Spain. Until then, for many centuries it was Arab scholars who were the sole custodians of the wisdom of the ancients.

To Christians in the rest of Europe, Aristotle's work was largely unknown. Then between 1120 and 1220 virtually the whole body of his work was rendered into Latin, mainly from Arabic translations. In addition there were also the writings of Avicenna and Averroës, two Arabic commentators whose interpretations of Aristotle were translated as well.

The sheer force of reason and systematic thought that was introduced into Europe's intellectual community by this had an enormous impact. It also created an enormous problem. Aristotle, you see, was no Christian and neither were his Arabic apologists. What to to? As expected, the Church acted swiftly, decisively and above all predictably. They banned the stuff.

It was however difficult to put the Genie back in the bottle and the prohibition was soon ignored and by 1240 the ban was no longer enforced. If outright prohibition didn't work perhaps the "heresies" of Aristotle could be "modified" to fit the dogma of the Church. This solution didn't win immediate acceptance but was ultimately incorporated into church theology.

The ball was initially carried by a group of devoted scholars mostly in Paris and two popular new religious orders, Dominicans and Franciscans, had a lot to do with that. I won't bore you with a lot of extraneous detail, but I would like to single out two of the more significant scholastics. The best known of the group is Saint Thomas Aquinas. Not as well known but perhaps more important is Saint Albert the Great or Albertus Magnus as he is usually called.

Aquinas is generally credited with successfully integrating the wisdom of Aristotle into the teachings of the Church so much so that most of his insights into for example the structure of the Universe were adopted as the revealed wisdom of God himself. As we have seen elsewhere, this created some serious problems for future scientists for many centuries.

Anyway, the process began with Albertus Magnus. You can read a short biography here, but let's skip through the highlights. As is so often the case, his original thoughts and concepts which were motivated by a humble faith and a genuine desire to understand his world did not wear all that well over time as it became part of a tired and rusty dogma.

Hardly driven by dogma, Magnus himself observed, "He who believes Aristotle to have been a god ought to suppose that he never made a mistake; but if he believes him to have been a man, doubtless he could make a mistake, just as we do." Yet, where appropriate, he accepted the main lines of Aristotle's realism, and showed that Christian doctrine could be expressed in terms of it.

In an odd sort of way, Magnus helped the eventual cause of the future scientists. Rather than accept that the secular Greek philosophy that had been thrust into the lap of Christian Europe, was totally ungodly and unacceptable, he successfully argued that secular learning had a place in the Church. The thin edge of the wedge.

As much as his efforts by today's standards may seem regressive because they shrouded scientific inquiry in a theological fog, in his time he was a mental giant with a towering intellect, an inquiring mind and a passion for reason. In twelfth and especially thirteenth century Europe any kind of secular inquiry was a major leap forward.

The problem is what happened later. Inevitably, what began as a fresh new look at the methods and content of science all too soon became just one more straight jacket for the curious human intellect. Scientific inquisitiveness was all too quickly made to obey society's preconditions and preconceptions.

I suppose that's the real lesson to be drawn from this tale. Truly creative insights can be very easily derailed by the strictures imposed by society and perhaps more importantly by our own internal censors. How many important truths are still-born because of this, how many cures left undiscovered.

Faith is a powerful force in most lives. Our belief system is central to what it means to be human. Many of man's greatest achievements were inspired by and empowered by his spiritual heart. Yet there is no denying that bias, prejudice and wrong headed preconceptions have caused untold harm. Science has often been a victim.

Other Essays