Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clivedurdle · 09-12-2008, 01:25 PM

Emperor Barbaric was elected by the 5th 6th and seventh legions on the banks of the Euphrates following the death of Julian...

Crimson Glory · 09-12-2008, 05:41 PM

Interesting. So, as long as they were christianized they became more dangerous to the Empire? It makes sense...

lpetrich · 09-13-2008, 09:43 AM

Yes, because of their opposition to rival sects of Xianity -- they'd get into vicious fights over the nature of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and whether to call the Virgin Mary the Mother of Christ or the Mother of God. Those were the days of the homoousia - homoiousia controversy, over whether the Father and the Son had the same or similar essences.

Arian: "You suck! You believe that the Father and the Son are coequal! The Son is subordinate to the Father!!!"

Orthodox: "You suck! You believe that the Son is subordinate to the Father! The Father and the Son are coequal!!!"

BTW, I checked out that article's Augustine quote; it's from Chapter 9 (or 3.9) of his Enchiridion ("Manual" or "Handbook"):

Quote:

When, then, the question is asked what we are to believe in regard to religion, it is not necessary to probe into the nature of things, as was done by those whom the Greeks call physici ("physicists"); nor need we be in alarm lest the Christian should be ignorant of the force and number of the elements—the motion, and order, and eclipses of the heavenly bodies; the form of the heavens; the species and the natures of animals, plants, stones, fountains, rivers, mountains; about chronology and distances; the signs of coming storms; and a thousand other things which those philosophers either have found out, or think they have found out. For even these men themselves, endowed though they are with so much genius, burning with zeal, abounding in leisure, tracking some things by the aid of human conjecture, searching into others with the aids of history and experience, have not found out all things; and even their boasted discoveries are oftener mere guesses than certain knowledge. It is enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator the one true God; and that nothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from Him; and that He is the Trinity— to wit, the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father, but one and the same Spirit of Father and Son.

(from this translation)

Summary: It's OK to be ignorant of science, because all one has to know is Goddidit, and because scientists are a bunch of know-it-alls who don't really know as much as they think they do.

Of other theologians, Tertullian opposed all pagan philosophy, while Clement thought it useful as preparation for the True Religion. And while many theologians liked Plato, they disdained Aristotle as heretical until the 1200's or so.

Crimson Glory · 09-13-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Summary: It's OK to be ignorant of science, because all one has to know is Goddidit, and because scientists are a bunch of know-it-alls who don't really know as much as they think they do.

Of other theologians, Tertullian opposed all pagan philosophy, while Clement thought it useful as preparation for the True Religion. And while many theologians liked Plato, they disdained Aristotle as heretical until the 1200's or so.

I guess there is not much trouble in finding out Christian quotes attacking science and knowledge, especially the Church Fathers... These kind of quotes are even in the NT.

Clivedurdle · 09-13-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Glory

Interesting. So, as long as they were christianized they became more dangerous to the Empire? It makes sense...

Not necessarily - remember Constantinople was the New Rome - Rome geographically was on the fringes - the action had always been in West Asia.

Thus attacks by alleged barbarians on the old Rome may be understood as the Empire using mercenaries to reconquer territory.

MarkA · 09-13-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

Theoderic was a much more civilized ruler than many traditional Roman rulers. Even Gaiseric and Alaric imposed order after their successful conquests.

I would agree about Theoderic. Gaiseric and Alaric seem more dubious.

Andrew Criddle

Aetius was a hostage of the Visigoths under Alaric and Aetius greatly admired the Visigoth ruler. The sack of Rome appears to have been a very controlled affair. It spared many important sites and was stopped on Alaric's orders after three days. Indeed, one could almost suspect that it was not a sack at all but rather a calculated terrorist attack designed to destroy resistance and not destroy the city. Nor does it appear it was an attack against the culture or civilization of Rome.

As for Gaiseric, the ex-province of Africa was never more prosperous than under the Vandals. History was written by the losers in the case of the barbarian invasions of the western empire so our view is very distorted.

lpetrich · 09-13-2008, 05:43 PM

Crimson Glory, Richard Carrier discusses the question of early-Xian arguments in

Would the Facts Be Checked?
Did the Earliest Christians Encourage Critical Inquiry?

As he notes, the main arguments the early Xians had were revelations and miracles and Bible-waving. Someone had a vision of an angel. And someone had a miraculous cure. Etc.

The earliest theologians' arguments were equally lame.

Justin Martyr was a seeker for a while, trying out various philosophical schools. One of them devalued faith in God, one of them charged money, and one of them wanted for him to study the sciences. After being a Platonist for a while, he came across Xianity. And to him, Xianity had none of those defects, and it had the advantage of having the oldest prophetic books. His main "method": to believe that the Bible is 100% true.

RC summarizes some of his other arguments as "all learning, all research, and all science is foolish. Only the Bible is worth our attention. That's Justin's message. And that Christians have correctly interpreted the Bible is proven by the mere fact that they can exorcise demons, heal, and prophesy--the only 'gifts' he lists that could ever be imagined as supernatural."

Turning to Athenagoras, RC summarizes his arguments as "Screw you, all you academic lunkheads, and screw all your logic and science and scholarship. We have the Law and the Prophets. Everything else is obvious. End of argument."

About Tatian, RC says

Quote:

He converted simply because he found other religions morally repugnant and illogical, was impressed by the antiquity of the Bible, found the Christians to be the most moral followers of that most ancient text, and therefore concluded that they had the right interpretation of the most authoritative book--authoritative for no other reason than "our philosophy is older than the systems of the Greeks" (§ 31) and is the most morally attractive (e.g. § 32). End of story. Nowhere in his entire treatise does he ever once mention investigating anything, even though he devotes chapter after chapter to detailed proofs of the antiquity of the Bible and the moral superiority of Christians. In fact, nowhere does the issue of "evidence" ever arise for him at all--outside the "evidence" within scripture, and of the antiquity of scripture, and of the current moral superiority of Christians. Not only does Tatian show no interest at all in checking the facts concerning the resurrection of Jesus, but spends a lot of ink arguing that philosophy and scholarship are a stupid waste of time.

That was all before Constantine, though theologians after Constantine were not much better for a long time; Pope Gregory the Great, around 600 CE, famously found fault with someone for mixing "the praises of Jupiter" with "the praises of Christ."

andrewcriddle · 09-14-2008, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MarkA

As for Gaiseric, the ex-province of Africa was never more prosperous than under the Vandals. History was written by the losers in the case of the barbarian invasions of the western empire so our view is very distorted.

Gaiseric's activities were not confined to North Africa.
According to Procopius

Quote:

At that time, after the death of Valentinian, Gaiseric gained the support of the Mauretanii, and every year at the beginning of spring he made invasions into Sicily and Italy, enslaving some of the cities, razing others to the ground, and plundering everything; and when the land had become destitute of men and of money, he invaded the domain of the emperor of the East. And so he plundered Illyricum and the most of the Peloponnesus and of the rest of Greece and all the islands which lie near it. And again he went off to Sicily and Italy, and kept plundering and pillaging all places in turn. And one day when he had embarked on his ship in the harbor of Carthage, and the sails were already being spread, the pilot asked him, they say, against what men in the world he bade them go. And he in reply said: "Plainly against those with whom God is angry." Thus without any cause he kept making invasions wherever chance might lead him.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 09-15-2008, 07:01 PM

I did not come away thinking that Augustine was "dissing" these kinds of knowledge. Note the little dig he includes in the list of the investigator's laudable attributes: "abounding in leisure" (i.e., are members of the elite classes)! He does not seem to doubt that they have indeed figured some profound things out, although he adds that some things they assert are mere educated guesses. This description applies equally well to modern science as it did to what passed for science then.

Rather, he wants the common folks (i.e., the bulk of the Christian population) to rest assured that their belief that (the Christian) God created the heavens and earth, and thus by extension the processes that occur in them, carries more weight than the elites' knowledge about the particulars of how things work. Just a little spin doctoring.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

BTW, I checked out that article's Augustine quote; it's from Chapter 9 (or 3.9) of his Enchiridion ("Manual" or "Handbook"):

Quote:

When, then, the question is asked what we are to believe in regard to religion, it is not necessary to probe into the nature of things, as was done by those whom the Greeks call physici ("physicists"); nor need we be in alarm lest the Christian should be ignorant of the force and number of the elements—the motion, and order, and eclipses of the heavenly bodies; the form of the heavens; the species and the natures of animals, plants, stones, fountains, rivers, mountains; about chronology and distances; the signs of coming storms; and a thousand other things which those philosophers either have found out, or think they have found out. For even these men themselves, endowed though they are with so much genius, burning with zeal, abounding in leisure, tracking some things by the aid of human conjecture, searching into others with the aids of history and experience, have not found out all things; and even their boasted discoveries are oftener mere guesses than certain knowledge. It is enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of all created things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible or invisible, is the goodness of the Creator the one true God; and that nothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from Him; and that He is the Trinity— to wit, the Father, and the Son begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the same Father, but one and the same Spirit of Father and Son.

(from this translation)

Summary: It's OK to be ignorant of science, because all one has to know is Goddidit, and because scientists are a bunch of know-it-alls who don't really know as much as they think they do.

Of other theologians, Tertullian opposed all pagan philosophy, while Clement thought it useful as preparation for the True Religion. And while many theologians liked Plato, they disdained Aristotle as heretical until the 1200's or so.

Roger Pearse · 09-16-2008, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crimson Glory

Quote:

Originally Posted by lpetrich

Of other theologians, Tertullian opposed all pagan philosophy, while Clement thought it useful as preparation for the True Religion. And while many theologians liked Plato, they disdained Aristotle as heretical until the 1200's or so.

I guess there is not much trouble in finding out Christian quotes attacking science and knowledge, especially the Church Fathers... These kind of quotes are even in the NT.

Erm, how is pagan philosophy "science", rather than religion? Primarily it was the latter in popular experience, and the objections of the fathers to it arise from its use as a source for introducing paganism into Christianity (e.g. Tertullian De praescriptione haereticorum 6). The anachronism in all this is dreadful.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-12-2008, 01:25 PM	#11
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Emperor Barbaric was elected by the 5th 6th and seventh legions on the banks of the Euphrates following the death of Julian...

09-12-2008, 05:41 PM	#12
Crimson Glory Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina Posts: 37	Interesting. So, as long as they were christianized they became more dangerous to the Empire? It makes sense...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.