lpetrich

Where in the Bible does God say "I have created a godless, materialistic Universe, the Universe of the Epicureans, a Universe that is nothing but atoms and the void"?

Divine, angelic, demonic, and diabolical agency was widely believed in back in the Middle Ages -- contrary to what JH seems to think, they weren't deists back then. Why weren't they copying Lucretius's On the Nature of Things like mad and celebrating his work as describing what God had created?

Look at biographies of medieval saints -- they are full of miracles.

Universal laws? That's what most Greek philosophers had believed in, in one form or another -- the nature of atoms or Plato's Forms or whatever.

Linear non-eternal time means that the Universe's behavior is not exactly following universal laws, because it implies great violations of law at the beginning and at the ending of the Universe.

And mathematics? That's what inspired the metaphysics of the likes of Pythagoras and Plato. If you draw a circle, you are creating an imperfect imitation of some ideal circle that has some special metaphysical existence.

And it's only toward the end of the Middle Ages that mathematical innovation takes off -- and one does not need very fancy tech to appreciate mathematics. So while the theologians were not opposed to mathematics, they were not very interested in it.

Medieval theologians weren't that much different; they believed that angels pushed the planets around. One objection to heliocentrism was that the Earth would be pushed around the Sun by a demon instead of by an angel, as the other planets would be.

(quote of Severus Sebokht who sounds like a rigorous rationalist about astrology...)

There is actual brain-scan evidence of selective rationalism. Back in 2004, both Democratic and Republican campaign workers were shown some contradictions in various candidates' positions. The reasoning parts of their brains were active for candidates of other parties -- but not for theirs.

James Hannam

No. My strategy is not to think the worst of the church or the middle ages without first carefully checking the evidence rather than relying on prejudice or popular myth. I think mine is a sensible strategy.

I'll start a new thread on medicine as it is OT here and this thread is long enough.

Best wishes

James

Lógos Sokratikós

Well, you do consider medieval innovations and link them to Christianity, don't you?

James Hannam

Only if I can see evidence of a link.

WishboneDawn

I'm not sure where that comment gets you. James' comment isn't false. Do you have information that would show Copernicus was afraid of persecution for instance?

Catherine Bain

That's sounds like some very interesting research pertinent to our tendency to form cliques and tribes and to the way our societies function and disfunction. I've just done a google search on selective rationalism and can't find anything - do you know where there I can find more info on this?

Ray Moscow

Of course. Although he was apparently on friendly terms with some church officials, he delayed publication of his work until just before his death.

You can see what happened to Galileo when one was not quite so careful with ideas that seemed to contradict church doctrine. (And please don't start down the road to tell me that Galileo was not threatened with harm by the church.)

Ray

Ray Moscow

Well, the most influential theologian of the day apparently had his reservations:

James Hannam

Mathematicus is the Latin for astrologer, not mathematician. Augustine, like Richard Dawkins, objected to astrology. The idea he had problems with maths is purely down to a mistranslation.

Best wishes

James

Roger Pearse

Reference?

All the best,

Roger Pearse