[jimbob]

The Church does not have a philosophical domain. It does not provide logical arguments for why it is right, it just says that what it says is right, period. So, there is no philosophy about it.

Well, besides the fact that the statement above is incredibly insulting, there are considerable volumes of religious philosophy, I dare say libraries full of philosophy that examines the meaning of life and our moral/ethical roles. Furthermore, not all philosophy is etiological in nature, philosophy is far broader than that! Finally, there are exceptionally logical arguments for the various religious belief systems, but if a person has already decided which world view is correct, they cannot accept the others as true. The most obviously a person who rejects the supernatural could never accept Hinduism, Shintoism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Shamanism. Though a very small minority of Buddists are atheist, being a "non-supernaturalist" and a Buddist simultaneously is conceivable.

My argument was that the Church held back advancement during the European Dark Ages, not during this period. I just could not think of any specific examples of people during the European Dark Ages that were persecuted for thinking for themselves.

I could make an equally compelling (but not nearly as tired) argument that the Church was the only thing holding the medieval European civilization together, post-Rome/Byzantine. The fact that the only surviving ancient Greek texts (Plato and the boys) were maintained by Christian monks in Ireland would be only one of many sound arguments for the positive role of the Church in the advancement/maintenance of advancement of western mankind. The fact that Universities were created and sustained by the European Church would also be a strong argument for the positive role of the Church in the advancement of western mankind.

I guess I'm simply not willing to see the popular "Church = bad:Scientist = good" statement as either accurate nor fulfilling.