The Giordano Bruno case is interesting. He was Dominican friar. A minor authority in a minor branch of the Holy Roman Empire Church (or whatever they called it then), so no significant threat to the Pope. Until he started shooting his mouth off, claiming he understood the ways of God better than the top man, whose authority rested entirely on being the closest man to God on earth. Then he would have to be taken out, mercilessly, I would have thought.

Galileo's dad had been the keeper of the sacred music which, in those days, would have put him on the Pope's right hand. A similar kind of relationship as a tribal Witch Doctor might have with the Chief. So it's not hard to imagine that, when the Witch Doctor's son converted to Bruno's branch of the Holy Roman Religion, the Pope would be in a bit of a fix. How easy would it be for him to burn the Witch Doctor's son at the stake?

So it would be fair to say that Galileo wasn't so much one of the first guys to invent a new religion that threatened to kick the old one out. But one of the last guys in a much vilified, fringe branch of the old religion, that had infiltrated so far into the inner-circle it was about to go mainstream.

Seen in that context, Galileo was less of an original thinker and more of a young chancer, in the right time and place. He chanced that, amongst all the other heretics that had preceded him, he was the only one the Pope wouldn't dare crucify. If he took that chance, he would have his day in court and his place in the history books. History books written by the only people who could write, the scribes of the Holy Roman Empire Church. Who would most likely record that many of the ideas Galileo had gathered from the underground movement he had hung out with, belonged to him.

If the Pope had got the Bruno's branch of the Holy Roman Religion before Galileo, as the Emperor Constantine had got Christianity more than a millennium before (paving the way for re-branding the Roman Empire as the Holy Roman Empire), then Galileo would have been more likely to be charged with plagiarism or copyright theft than heresy.

So, all in all, it's fair to say that science was born from Christianity and has been largely nurtured by it ever since.

H.G. Wells took it even further in “A Short History of the World,” where he argues that the development of science was only made possible by the teachings of Jesus Christ. Christ stood against all authorities, from the Roman Empire to the Jewish Church. At the beginnings of the European Intellectual Revival in the 11th century, it was Christ's teaching of a direct relation between the conscience of the individual and the god of righteousness (not ordinary righteousness, but pure righteousness as a fundamental ideal) that gave an individual "the courage to form his own judgement upon prince or prelate or creed:

"As early as the eleventh century philosophical discussion had begun again in Europe, and there were great and growing universities at Paris, Oxford, Bologna and other centres. There, medieval 'schoolmen' took up again and thrashed out a series of questions upon the value and meaning of words that were a necessary preliminary to clear thinking in the scientific age that was to follow.

[...]

And the stir in men's minds was by no means confined now to the independent and the well-educated. The mind of the common man was awake in the world as it never had been before in all the experience of mankind. In spite of priest and persecution, Christianity seems to have carried a mental ferment wherever its teachings reached.”

In" H. G. Wells. A Short History of the World, p.231)

Filling a black space is not bad in itself, provided there is a way to test the assumptions. (In the case of our possible lions, looking down from higher ground may reveal the truth. The expanding base of tested theory provides the elevation to see further, and so some of the lions can be either seen or shown to be something else. The problem is, we still have a horizon, albeit an expanded one, and there may be more lions out there also.)

The religious problem results from creating fixed forms in the black spaces. Imagining is one thing, creating mythic tales is fine, but making of imagination a fixed a priori first cause, and then insisting that the universe conform to it is a vexing problem. Religion needs to learn from science to hold its views tentatively, to allow the narratives and beliefs to morph as human understanding and scientific evidence reveal further into the mystery. God must always be beyond comprehension, or as the German theologian Meister Eckhart ascribed to Augustine: "If I had a God I could understand, I would no longer consider him God." We need to refrain from saying what God is, and continue exploring the mystery, appreciating the complexity, beauty, and awe which we experience in reflecting upon the universe in which we exist.

That's the problem with pouring scorn on Christianity and driving it out of town. Science was born from it and nurtured by it. Throw out the bathwater of Christianity and we risk throwing out the baby of Science toot. ( )

From his perspective in 1922, H.G. Wells wrote a "Short History of the World." This straightforward look at the world's timeline, from the first appearance of humans to the reconstruction after World War I is an engaging and concise adventure story that also happens to be true.

This is by no means an in depth history of the world and is certainly outdated, however it is a fascinating read and there are still many interesting things to be learned from it. As a student of history myself, I enjoy reading historical texts written in other time periods for a number of reasons, but the most relevant and interesting to me is what such a text can teach you about the time in which it is written, in this case Victorian England. There is much information to be gleaned about the England that Wells inhabited even when he is discussing other historical periods. The cliche "History is told by the victors" is very true, but it is also told in voice of the teller. That is to say, history is a very "political" endeavor, always hued in whatever colours the teller favours. A United Empire Loyalist writes a very different account of the American Revolution than a revolutionary patriot. A Darwinist sees a different origin of our species than a Christian and so different events will have differing significance to each. Everything from our politics to our religion combine with our place and period to taint the histories we encounter which means the way histories are told can give us remarkable insight into the people telling it.Give this book a read if you are a fan of history, HG Wells or Victorian England. It is a very fascinating read in my opinion. ( )

1965

I'm giving this 5 stars because it may become "the book that ended the Non-Fiction and History Curse". For a proper review though, you'll have to wait until I've read more history and can compare. Or until Alex reads it, whatever happens first. For now, I just thought it was awesome. ( )