BioBeing

Errr, not exactly. From University College, Oxford
Most, if not all of the Oxford colleges started out this way, IIRC.

e.g. Brasenose Colege, a later addition...

Bede

BioBeing,

Not true. Oxford was always dominated by the Arts Faculty (which means undergrads doing the seven libaral arts (rhetoric, grammar, dialectic, music, arithmatic, geometry, astronomy) and natural and moral philosophy plus metaphysics) whereas Paris was always dominated by the theologians. It was just an accidental thing but theology was never all that important at Oxford where the legacy of Robert Grossteste was long lasting. Each college was founded for particular reasons (Univ is just one college of thirty or so) and they are all rather younger than the university itself that dates from c.1150. Note that most subjects were taught at most universities but which one was the most important varied. Theology was regarded as the highest form of learning but was not the highest regarded faculty at many universities.

You are actually right about BNC. It was founded as a reaction by traditionalists after the new learning of humanism swept the intellectual plains of Europe.

There is a lot of scholarship on the medieval unis and I have a read a good deal on the subject. While I am happy to discuss the matter you will need to do better than a google search to score any points.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

BioBeing

It was my understanding that the colleges (Univ., Balliol and Merton being the first formally incorporated) started as halls of residence for students attending the University. Further, I understood the teachings of the university to be mainly of theology. My prior post was not made on the basis of a formal study of the discipline it is true, but neither was it purely the result of a Google search. I am sorry that the colleges themselves have got their information incorrect.

BioBeing, D.Phil. (Chemistry), Brasenose College, 1993.

Edit - real name available by PM if you want to verify my credentials

Bede

BioBeing,

Well, we were at Oxford at the same time: St Anne's BA Physics 1993! Very disloyally, after ten years in the City, I'm doing my PhD from October (in History of Science) at Another Place so I hope you'll still speak to me.

My thesis will be on English science around 1500 and the effect of humanism. BNC was refounded by a man called William Smyth (as I'm sure you know) who was a conservative Aristotelian and will certainly feature in my research. The written work I did for my PhD application included a long essay on science, the church and medieval unis which I'll be putting on the 'net as soon as I can bring myself to code sixty odd footnotes. I can email it to you if you'd like a sneak preview. The colleges were founded by benefactors who had particular priorities which coloured the ethos of each one. Merton, for instance, is famous (among historians of science anyway) for the Merton calculators who did interesting work in kinematics and proto-calculus in the 14th century. Theologians had to do four years to get there MA and them another eight or so to get the DD so tended to receive more charity than most students. Very few actually completed theology training. We have fascinating letters complaining about student fees and poverty from the very first! No change there, then.

BTW, you will have first hand experience that science graduates at Oxford are taught no philosophy or history of their subject whatsoever which is part of the reason that science manages to pertuate its myths so successfully.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

PS: Mods, is there any way a thread can be classed as a bit more serious? SecularFuture's effort can only be classed as trolling after all that has gone before.

hezekiah jones

Speaking of which:

Ernan McMullin Mops the Floor with Alvin Plantinga

Biff the unclean

One thing I have noticed about Webchristians (a new word. Like it?) is that it isn't enough for them to claim that 'everything Christian is good.' They seem to feel compelled to extend that to 'everything good is Christian.' We are constantly flooded with claims that science is Christian, Democracy is a Christian idea, The Founding Fathers established the US as a Christian nation, Humanism is Christian in origin, etc. Then they will bend and twist and otherwise torture the facts to suit their contentions.

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Biff the unclean
... Webchristians (a new word. Like it?) ...

Very much.

FWIW, I also attend a Jesuit university. At least two of my professors, Crim Law and Con Law respectively, are devout Catholics. In fact the former is a Jesuit priest, and holds degrees not only in law, but in philosophy and theology. They are among the brightest, funniest, most knowledgeable people I have ever met.

Their personal religious beliefs are entirely irrelevant to me. Their scholarship, insights, humor, and arguments are compelling regardless of their faith.

BioBeing

This is one of my main problems with that Duhem-Jaki thesis. Because the Christians had the Inquisition and got rid of all opposing points of view (which included some superstitious clap-trap, for sure, but maybe also some good ideas?), this somehow gives them the right to claim themselves as champions of science? It seems as if the only thing going for Christianity is that there is no one form of Christianity, and the more liberal branches have managed to somehow maintain some kind of balance with the ultra-fundie ones. There is no way that were Christianity limited to a strict interpretation of the Bible that science would have been allowed to flourish. THAT is what we are seeing now with the Fundies fighting tooth and nail to try and discredit evolution. Science has forced the more liberal (and openminded?) Christians to look at the bible and say maybe it isn’t absolute. Is this what the Pope and Tempier had in mind during the Inquistions? Is that what the beetle collectors who were so busy studying God’s handiwork in Victorian England set out to do? If Christianity did in fact set the stage for science (which it may well have done), the outcome (i.e. modern science and scientific refutations of Biblical events) could not at all be what was intended.



[Don't worry, Hugo - I will get to that Lindberg essay ]

Celsus

Ernan McMullin is a theist (Roman Catholic?), and a scientific realist I believe. He's specifically rebutting Plantinga's attempts at generating a "theistic" science in which the supernatural and metaphysics are allowed in. And of course, he does indeed wipe the floor with Plantinga's arguments. But that hasn't got too much to do with the topic at hand.

Joel

(Bede: It's my turn to say "I'll be back.")

hezekiah jones

Originally posted by Celsus
Ernan McMullin is a theist (Roman Catholic?), and a scientific realist I believe. He's specifically rebutting Plantinga's attempts at generating a "theistic" science in which the supernatural and metaphysics are allowed in. And of course, he does indeed wipe the floor with Plantinga's arguments. But that hasn't got too much to do with the topic at hand.

My apologies. There are, as often is the case, a couple of topics and a couple of subtopics at work here. The rest of what you say is true, which is precisely why I posted it in response to Biff's remarks directly above.

Anyway, do carry on (even though I think McMullin's essay is very much related to the "topic at hand").