Reddit reviews Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

> ... the Byzantine Empire preserved the knowledge of the Roman Empire...

Claim accepted for discussion.

> thus Christains didn't cause science to stagnate.

Does not necessarily follow from above claim, nor from presented argument.

At best one can conclude - Christianity, and Christians, grudgingly advanced scientific knowledge through a filter of theological apologetics with up to outright rejection if the natural philosophy/scientific knowledge was counter to Christian tenets or traditions. And much scientific knowledge was developed in historically Christian countries/societies in spite of Christianity. However, Christianity did play a support role in scientific knowledge as the Church was, through political and economic control of the various countries/societies, as the Church was an accumulator of wealth that allowed spending (because they were the only institution that had sufficient wealth) on abstracts like natural philosophy/scientific knowledge development.

Care to learn more where the Church/Christianity retarded scientific knowledge accumulation/dissemination?

• A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, 2 volumes, By Andrew Dickson White
  
• The Victorian Conflict between Science and Religion: A Professional Dimension, by Frank M. Turner, Isis, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Sep., 1978), pp. 356-376
  
• Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives, By John Hedley Brooke
  
• History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science, by John William Draper
  
• An interesting look at revisionist apologistics: Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction, by Gary B. Ferngren
  
• Persecution of Noted Physicians and Medical Scientists, by Steven I. Hajdu, Ann Clin Lab Sci Summer 2007 vol. 37 no. 3 295-297

Those guys are horrible at history. I would recommend going to /r/badhistory for rebuttals, in the meantime I found some books that I think can really help out debunking this myth.

Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction

Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology

Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths about Science and Religion

When Science and Christianity Meet

The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution

The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450

The Savior of Science

For the Glory of God

The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science

The History of Science from Augustine to Galileo

Yes this is a long list but that's because it's studied so often ;). I hope this helps.

Tim Keller has some good advice about approaching new atheists in general.

You might try some things by Alister McGrath, on Dawkins views in general or specifically on the Dawkins Delusion. There's several links here, and the correspondence with Mike Poole takes on some of the more aggressive claims down the bottom of the page. William Lane Craig makes points on who designed the designer. In fact he has quite a few videos like that which can at least be a starting point.

But really the best defence against Dawkins is simply to get to know the facts. Get a book or two on the historic relationship between science and Christianity. Get to know about Christianity and what historic Christians have actually said, and it will be harder for people to present you with strawmen. Get to know what you think first, and then you know what to defend.

> Science. Religion has been fighting it for thousands of years.

I'm afraid that to even assume that science and religion existed as distinct concepts or endeavours thousands of years ago is a bit naïve, and this idea that they are eternally opposed is a very simplistic view that reflects the biases of anticlerical 19th Century historians more than the actual facts—it's only really been defended by people with a grudge against religion since a reappraisal of the subject in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s (and especially since the reappraisal by James Moore in The Post-Darwinian Controversies). Here are a few books that could help you develop a richer understanding of the historical relationship between science and religion.

• David C. Lindberg, The Beginnings of Western Science: The European Scientific Tradition in Philosophical, Religious, and Institutional Context, Prehistory to A.D. 1450 (University of Chicago Press, 2007)
  
• E. A. Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science (Routledge, 1931)
  
• Gary B. Ferngren, ed., Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (John Hopkins University Press, 2002)
  
• Ronald L. Numbers, ed., Galileo Goes to Jail and Other Myths About Science and Religion (Harvard University Press, 2009)
  
  These would probably be illuminating reading as well.
  
  
• Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962)
  
• Brian Davies, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford University Press, 2004)
  
  > Here is just another surrender by a guy at the top of the money chain.
  
  No one interested in the subject should be under the impression that what the Pope has said is anything new. Eminent Catholic theologians like John Henry Newman found Darwin's theory of natural selection consistent with Christianity when it was published, and Pope Pius XII very famously affirmed that there was no intrinsic conflict between them in his 1950 encyclical Humani generis. As for the Big Bang, it is downright foolish to characterise the Church as "surrendering" to a theory that was formulated by a Catholic priest in the first place.