There can be no doubt that in early human history, many people viewed the earth as flat.  At different times, it took various flat geometric shapes including a circular disc, a rectangle, a parallelogram, etc.  Therefore, the question at hand is not whether it was ever viewed as flat, but when people ceased to hold this view.  Early Sumerian and Babylonian civilizations viewed the earth as flat, disc-like, etc.  We cannot blame them - they simply lacked the knowledge and tools necessary to know its true form.  Next, as you will see, history shows us that ancient Greeks first began to view the earth as spherical.  Later, however, the flat earth concept shows a minor reappearance in Pre-Medieval times and a nearly immeasurable presence in the very Early Medieval ages. and even smaller.   This minor reappearance seems to have been primarily driven by a fundamental, literal interpretation of the Scriptures by Christians.  The strict interpretations trapped a few of the very early Church Fathers into a position of opposing a spherical earth.  This stance was not widely held.  In fact, it can be argued that it was entirely insignificant for it did not prevail.  In other areas, such as earth-centric beliefs (earth as center of universe), planetary motion and concepts of the universe in general; the historical record may be viewed as more critical of the Church.  However, here we are strictly focused on flat earth thinking alone.  [You can expect future articles from the Ethical Atheist which address these other issues.]

In recent years, a few writers have begun to assert that the view of the Flat Earth is a myth.  After considerable research and a difficult struggle in keeping an open mind on the issue, we now agree with many of these authors findings.  However, we would not go so far as to say it is a "myth" because there is indeed evidence that some believed the earth to be flat.  We hope to show, through actual quotes from the early writers in question, that many currently held views of the past are simply wrong.  Some contemporary historians incorrectly state that until shortly before Columbus's voyage in 1492, it was widely believed that the Earth was flat.  This is an obvious fallacy.  The confusion surrounding Columbus was not based on the shape of the earth, but its size.  This is addressed in Chapter 6 - "The Confusion Surrounding Christopher Columbus".  Columbus aside, let's look at other evidence of flat earth thinking.

The questions we shall focus on are:

What are the earliest known views of the earth's shape?

When were the first spherical views held?

Was there a reappearance of flat earth thinking in the Church? If so, when?  How widespread was this view?  Did it have much influence?  When did it end?

What specific evidence exists of flat-earth beliefs by early Church leaders?

What specific evidence exists that which shows a misinterpretation of historical quotes as flat earth thinking?

Why is there so much confusion over flat earth beliefs?

Is there a secular conspiracy?

At first, the Ethical Atheist was reluctant to write on the flat earth topic.  The reason for this lies in the fact that historians writing on events that occurred long ago often publish works that bare little resemblance to the event itself.  Historians are human beings who are biased based on their own perceptions, beliefs and, at times, personal agendas.  We find widely differing accounts of many past events and the true story is often corrupted proportionally to the amount of time which has passed between the event and the recollection.  Therefore, we have made an effort to cite original works wherever possible.

As we assess very old human history, let us propose the following "Tenets of Historical Study".  These should be the guide in determining the value of an historical writing.  While this may appear as stating the obvious, it is clearly not obvious to many contemporary historians.

To answer the flat earth questions outlined previously, you will see that the answers are not black and white.  There are shades of gray where we can only interpret the versions of history. We cannot say precisely that, "At time X, people no longer believed the earth was flat."  We cannot even say that "The Church believed..." without being clear about which Church is in question and who precisely in that Church, because without a doubt, there were conflicting views on such a controversial topic.  One will also find such statements as "...no educated person still believed in a flat earth..." or "...no discoverer believed...", etc.  However, at certain times in ancient history even some educated scientists and astronomers believed in a flat earth.
 

Can we really say that because some people during a given time believed the earth was spherical, that all people believed the earth was spherical?  Or, that if some educated people believed the earth was spherical, that all educated people believed the earth was spherical?  There are many examples throughout history where there have been topics which were not accepted by 100% of the population.  The issue of flat earth thinking has elements which further complicate arriving at a good estimation of the breakdown of flat vs. spherical beliefs.  For example, the opposition to a spherical earth came from the Church and were biblical in nature.  So, what percentage who said they believed the earth was flat were doing so for religious reasons?  On the other hand, what percentage did not even contemplate the shape of the earth because they thought it was not relevant to their lives?  What percentage held a spherical view but didn't promote it for fear of conflict with the Church?  All of these factors are relevant in this study, yet the answers are very difficult, if not impossible to attain.

To further demonstrate the difficulties in writing "truthful" historical accounts, imagine what will be written 500 years from today about the following:

When did creationists finally throw in the towel on creationism and begin backing evolution?  {Will they say that in 2002, evolution was the prevailing view?  Or, the view among educated persons?  Clearly, there are many creationists today that still refuse to concede.}

When did religious groups quit believing that vaccinations and modern medicine were a violation of God's will? {Many freely submit to health care today, but there are still backwards thinking parents that let their children die of curable ailments rather than 'violate the will of God'.}

Other examples: birth control, interracial marriage, slavery, age of the earth, etc.

REASONS FOR RESISTANCE TO NEW VIEWS

It is generally accepted in the intellectual community that religious groups and institutions have almost always been the last to change their views based on scientific findings.  Why?  Their minds are not open to new ideas because the confines of religious thinking and the desire to hold that the Bible is the inerrant word of God do not allow it.  The Bible, Koran and other religious writings do not change (not counting corruption though the many translations!).  So, the religious mind is often not open to change.  For example, there is abundant evidence of evolution in the fossil record; everywhere you look (fossils, rocks, erosion, light from distance stars, etc.) there is proof that the earth is far older than 10,000 years. [Most recent estimate is 4.55 billion years.]  Yet, creationists refuse to be swayed by the facts - insisting that humans, the earth and the universe are God's creation all having an age somewhere less than 10,000 years.  Other examples include the reluctance to accept the findings of science with respect to planetary motion, dynamics of the universe, dinosaurs, etc.  Was this aversion to science present in pre-medieval and early medieval times?  Yes.  Did it have influence on flat earth thinking?  Well... Yes, but in a very limited way represented historically by only a few individuals.  Did it result in any flat earth thinking past approximately 550 A.D.?  We simply do not find any evidence of this.

A group actually promoting religious tolerance lists the following stages from religious denial to final acceptance, which may take centuries.